On 11.08.2022 15:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 11:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>> @@ -2162,7 +2162,7 @@ int map_domain_pirq(
>> if ( !cpu_has_apic )
>> goto done;
>>
>> - pdev = pci_get_pdev_by_domain(d, msi->seg, msi->bus, msi->devfn);
>> + pdev = pci_get_pdev(d, PCI_SBDF(msi->seg, msi->bus, msi->devfn));
>
> Oh, I should really have read this patch before trying to do the sbdf
> conversion in patch 1.
>
> However, it occurs to me that this:
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
> index 117379318f2c..6f0ab845017c 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
> @@ -59,9 +59,14 @@
> #define FIX_MSIX_MAX_PAGES 512
>
> struct msi_info {
> - u16 seg;
> - u8 bus;
> - u8 devfn;
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 devfn;
> + u8 bus;
> + u16 seg;
> + };
> + pci_sbdf_t sbdf;
> + };
> int irq;
> int entry_nr;
> uint64_t table_base;
>
> will simplify several hunks in this patch, because you can just pass
> msi->sbdf rather than reconstructing it by reversing 32 bits worth of
> data from their in-memory representation.
No, I'm strictly against introducing a 2nd instance of such aliasing
(we already have one in struct pci_dev, and that's bad enough). There
could be _only_ an "sbdf" field here, yes, but that'll have knock-on
effects elsewhere, so wants to be a separate change. And there are far
more places where imo we'll want to use pci_sbdf_t.
> Preferably with something to this effect included, Reviewed-by: Andrew
> Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Thanks.
Jan
