>>> On 17.11.14 at 08:57, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/memory.c
> +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
> @@ -698,10 +698,13 @@ struct get_reserved_device_memory {
> unsigned int used_entries;
> };
>
> -static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start,
> - xen_ulong_t nr, void *ctxt)
> +static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start, xen_ulong_t nr, u16
> seg,
> + u16 *ids, int cnt, void *ctxt)
While the approach is a lot better than what you did previously, I still
don't like you adding 3 new parameters when one would do (calling
the callback for each SBDF individually): That way you avoid
introducing a hidden dependency on how the VT-d code manages its
internal data.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
