On 08/24/2010 03:24 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:04:44PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/24/2010 03:07 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:42:18PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/24/2010 02:35 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
Add Cc: m...@redhat.com.
MAX_PCI_SLOTS should be in pci.h instead of qdev.h?
And the name should be start with PCI_ prefix for consistency?
Except that, the patches look okay.
These aren't slots, are they? They are functions.
The function checks if given $slot.$fn (or $slot) is valid.
So it's slots. max 32.
+ assert(devfn< PCIBUS_MAX_DEVICES);
Looks like we're comparing a function number to PCIBUS_MAX_DEVICES.
Ah, you're talking about 2/3. I talked about 3/3.
You're right. The name is misleading.
PCIBUS_MAX_FUNCTIONS? Or suggestions?
Or assert(devfn / 8 < PCIBUS_MAX_DEVICES) (and change that to be 32).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
