On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > Likewise, if you see a patch go in that you think would have benefited > >> > from being on the list, point it out. People are reasonable and if you > >> > have a good suggestion, they'll value your input and be likely to seek > >> > it out in the future. > > > > Here is another patch that would have benefitted from review > > before commit: > > > >> commit cf616802171905a9b6d087a69caa3b978b9cd741 > >> Author: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> > >> Date: Sun Dec 27 20:52:36 2009 +0000 > >> > >> PCI: Fix bus address conversion > >> > >> Pass physical addresses to map functions instead of PCI bus addresses. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> > > > > and previous related patches. The issues here that I see are: > > > > - IMO mem_base should really be pci_bus_t, as pci address might be > > 64 bit mapped into 32 bit target > > > > - I think pci to pci bridges need mem_base copied from parent to child, > > this does not seem to be done? > > > > - map functions need to get pci_bus_t (for io), and now they get > > a cpu address there. The real fix IMO is moving the mapping > > to within pci.c. I think Avi had a patch to do this - > > any objections to refreshing it? > > > > Blue Swirl, could you comment please? > > The issues you point out (which may well be valid) are not related to > the change made by the patch and should be addressed by new patches.
Yes, there's no harm in fixing them separately. The point I was making is it is better to post patches on list so issues can be pointed out and discussed without the need to dig through git history. > IIRC Avi promised to refresh his patch but never delivered. I think > Paul also wanted that the bus translation would be handled in a more > generic way (eliminate map functions). I'd like to eliminate map functions as well. Do you have a link to the original patch btw? -- MST
