On 06.02.2025 16:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 02:04:35PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Have callers invoke pci_add_segment() directly instead: With radix tree >> initialization moved out of the function, its name isn't quite >> describing anymore what it actually does. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > IMO I would rather not add the segment here, and just make sure that > all callers that add segments have proper error reporting when it > fails.
Maybe. Yet then things may (on x86) work fine with secondary segments not properly working. A log from one of the few multi-segment systems that I had seen data from suggested that none of the devices on the secondary segment were actually used by anything. This was, if I'm not mistaken, the underlying reason why (on x86) we demand segment 0 to have proper representation, but do things best effort only for other segments. Which isn't to say that we can't change things and do better. > Maybe alloc_pseg() should gain a printk on failure? Not sure that would buy us much, especially if (on x86) it's seg 0 which is affected. For the patch at hand - do you then suggest to simply drop it? The plan here wasn't to re-work what we do, just tidy slightly how we do things. Jan
