>>> On 10.06.15 at 13:43, <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:00:55AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 08.06.15 at 13:28, <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:55:22AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> while function 0 has >> >> >> >> 0x10: Base Address Register 0 = 0xca23000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> >> prefetchable) >> >> 0x18: Base Address Register 2 = 0xca24000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> >> prefetchable) >> >> 0x20: Base Address Register 4 = 0xca25000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> >> prefetchable) >> >> >> >> and function 1 >> >> >> >> 0x10: Base Address Register 0 = 0xca20000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> >> prefetchable) >> >> 0x18: Base Address Register 2 = 0xca21000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> >> prefetchable) >> >> 0x20: Base Address Register 4 = 0xca22000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> >> prefetchable) >> >> >> >> > Does the sibling device have a BAR overlapping the address? >> >> >> >> No, its BARs are fully separate. >> > >> > Judging from the above, it's actually function 1's BAR 2 that >> > is accessed? Are you saying disabling memory on function 0 >> > breaks function 2 somehow? >> >> Oops, just noticed I didn't reply to this. Not sure how you >> come to that conclusion - the ITP log says that the bad write is to >> 0xca25004c. > > Look at the bridge configuration though - looks like it > will only forward transactions to 0xca21XXXX. > Anything else will be terminated by the bridge itself.
Right, that's what I had pointed out before, but then again things work prior to the guest shutting down (and in the absence of any guest), even if I can't explain why or how. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
