On 01/07/2015 04:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.01.15 at 03:18, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
@@ -618,7 +620,22 @@ ret_t do_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void)
arg)
}
else
pdev_info.is_virtfn = 0;
- ret = pci_add_device(add.seg, add.bus, add.devfn, &pdev_info);
+
+ if ( add.flags & XEN_PCI_DEV_PXM )
+ {
+ uint32_t pxm;
+ int optarr_off = offsetof(struct physdev_pci_device_add, optarr) /
unsigned int or size_t.
--- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
@@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ struct pci_dev {
u8 phantom_stride;
+ int node; /* NUMA node */
I thought I asked about this on v1 already: Does this really need to be
an int, when commonly node numbers are stored in u8/unsigned char?
Shrinking the field size would prevent the structure size from growing...
I kept this field as an int to be able to store NUMA_NO_NODE which I
thought to be (int)-1.
But now I see that NUMA_NO_NODE is, in fact, 0xff but is promoted to
(int)-1 by pxm_to_node(). Given that there is a number of tests for
NUMA_NO_NODE and not for (int)-1, should we then make pxm_to_node()
return u8 as well?
Of course an additional question would be whether the node wouldn't
better go into struct arch_pci_dev - that depends on whether we
expect ARM to be using NUMA...
Since we have CPU topology in common code I thought this would be
arch-independent as well.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
