On 01/07/2015 04:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.01.15 at 03:18, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
--- a/xen/common/sysctl.c
+++ b/xen/common/sysctl.c
@@ -365,6 +365,66 @@ long do_sysctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_sysctl_t)
u_sysctl)
}
break;
#ifdef HAS_PCI
+ case XEN_SYSCTL_pcitopoinfo:
+ {
+ xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo_t *ti = &op->u.pcitopoinfo;
+
+ if ( guest_handle_is_null(ti->pcitopo) ||
+ (ti->first_dev >= ti->num_devs) )
+ {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ for ( ; ti->first_dev < ti->num_devs; ti->first_dev++ )
+ {
+ xen_sysctl_pcitopo_t pcitopo;
+ struct pci_dev *pdev;
+
+ if ( copy_from_guest_offset(&pcitopo, ti->pcitopo,
+ ti->first_dev, 1) )
+ {
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&pcidevs_lock);
+ pdev = pci_get_pdev(pcitopo.pcidev.seg, pcitopo.pcidev.bus,
+ pcitopo.pcidev.devfn);
+ if ( !pdev || (pdev->node == NUMA_NO_NODE) )
+ pcitopo.node = INVALID_TOPOLOGY_ID;
+ else
+ pcitopo.node = pdev->node;
Are hypervisor-internal node numbers really meaningful to the caller?
This is the same information (pxm -> node mapping ) that we provide in
XEN_SYSCTL_topologyinfo (renamed in this series to
XEN_SYSCTL_cputopoinfo). Given that I expect the two topologies to be
used together I think the answer is yes.
@@ -463,7 +464,7 @@ typedef struct xen_sysctl_lockprof_op
xen_sysctl_lockprof_op_t;
DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_sysctl_lockprof_op_t);
/* XEN_SYSCTL_cputopoinfo */
-#define INVALID_TOPOLOGY_ID (~0U)
+#define INVALID_TOPOLOGY_ID (~0U) /* Also used by pcitopo */
Better extend the preceding comment.
I mentioned it to Wei yesterday that the file is structured (or at least
appears to me to be structured) in such a way that these top comments
mark sections of definitions for each sysctl. And so I thought that I'd
be breaking this convention if I were to extend the comment.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
