Sorry for the delay, it looks like this patch resolves the issue.
Tested-by: Crawford, Eric R <eric.r.crawf...@intel.com>
-Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Gao, Chao
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:27 AM
To: Crawford, Eric R <eric.r.crawf...@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monné
<roger....@citrix.com>; Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; George Dunlap
<george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>; Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>;
Crawford, Eric R <eric.r.crawf...@intel.com>; Tian, Kevin
<kevin.t...@intel.com>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>;
xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>; Tim
Deegan <t...@xen.org>; Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] VT-d: use correct BDF for VF to search VT-d unit
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:16:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 28.08.17 at 04:42, <chao....@intel.com> wrote:
>> When SR-IOV is enabled, 'Virtual Functions' of a 'Physical Function'
>> are under the scope of the same VT-d unit as the 'Physical Function'.
>> A 'Physical Function' can be a 'Traditional Function' or an ARI
>> 'Extended Function'. And furthermore, 'Extended Functions' on an
>> endpoint are under the scope of the same VT-d unit as the
>> 'Traditional Functions' on the endpoint. To search VT-d unit for a
>> VF, if its PF isn't an extended function, the BDF of PF should be
>> used. Otherwise the BDF of a traditional function in the same device
>> with the PF should be used.
>>
>> Current code uses PCI_SLOT() to recognize an ARI 'Extended Funcion'.
>> But it is conceptually wrong w/o checking whether PF is an extended
>> function and would lead to match VFs of a RC integrated PF to a wrong
>> VT-d unit.
>>
>> This patch overrides VF 'is_extfn' field and uses this field to
>> indicate whether the PF of this VF is an extended function. The field
>> helps to use correct BDF to search VT-d unit.
>>
>> Reported-by: Crawford, Eric R <eric.r.crawf...@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao....@intel.com>
>
>Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> albeit ...
>
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
>> @@ -211,15 +211,15 @@ struct acpi_drhd_unit
>> *acpi_find_matched_drhd_unit(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> if ( pdev == NULL )
>> return NULL;
>>
>> - if ( pdev->info.is_extfn )
>> + if ( pdev->info.is_virtfn )
>> {
>> - bus = pdev->bus;
>> - devfn = 0;
>> + bus = pdev->info.physfn.bus;
>> + devfn = (!pdev->info.is_extfn) ? pdev->info.physfn.devfn :
>> + 0;
>
>... if I end up committing this and if I don't forget, I'll likely take
>the liberty to remove the pointless parentheses here.
>
Hi, Eric.
Could you test this patch again and give your Tested-by if it fixes the problem
you reported?
Thanks
Chao
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
