>>> On 17.11.14 at 12:08, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2014/11/17 18:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> 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
>
> Do you mean I should do this?
>
> for_each_rmrr_device ( rmrr, bdf, i )
> {
> sbdf = PCI_SBDF(seg, rmrr->scope.devices[i]);
> rc = func(PFN_DOWN(rmrr->base_address),
> PFN_UP(rmrr->end_address) -
> PFN_DOWN(rmrr->base_address),
> sbdf,
> ctxt);
>
> But each different sbdf may occupy one same rmrr entry as I said
> previously, so we have to introduce more codes to filter them as one
> identified entry in the callback.
Not really - remember that part of what needs to be done is to make
sure all devices associated with a given RMRR get assigned to the
same guest? Or the callback function could use a special return value
(e.g. 1) to signal that the iteration for the current RMRR can be
terminated (or further entries skipped).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
