On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 05:54:20PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 24/07/2020 17:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 24.07.2020 17:15, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 24/07/2020 15:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = pci_find_host_bridge(sbdf.seg,
> > > > > sbdf.bus);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if ( unlikely(!bridge) )
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Unable to find bridge for "PRI_pci"\n",
> > > > > + sbdf.seg, sbdf.bus, sbdf.dev, sbdf.fn);
> > > >
> > > > I had a patch to add a custom modifier to out printf format in
> > > > order to handle pci_sbdf_t natively:
> > > >
> > > > https://patchew.org/Xen/20190822065132.48200-1-roger....@citrix.com/
> > > >
> > > > It missed maintainers Acks and was never committed. Since you are
> > > > doing a bunch of work here, and likely adding a lot of SBDF related
> > > > prints, feel free to import the modifier (%pp) and use in your code
> > > > (do not attempt to switch existing users, or it's likely to get
> > > > stuck again).
> > >
> > > I forgot about this patch :/. It would be good to revive it. Which acks
> > > are you missing?
> >
> > It wasn't so much missing acks, but a controversy. And that not so much
> > about switching existing users, but whether to indeed derive this from
> > %p (which I continue to consider inefficient).
>
> Looking at the thread, I can see you (relunctantly) acked any components
> that you are the sole maintainers. Kevin gave his acked for the vtd code and
> I gave it mine for the common code.
>
> I would suggest to not rehash the argument unless another maintainer agree
> with your position. It loosk like to me the next step is for Roger (or
> someone else) to resend the patch so we could collect the missing ack (I
> think there is only one missing from Andrew).
I've rebased and sent the updated patch with the collected Acks.
Roger.
