On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:53:08PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote: >VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec, >the normal way(writing BARs) of allocating resources wouldn't >be applied to VFs. The VFs' resources would be allocated >when we enable SR-IOV capability. So we should not try to >reassign alignment after we enable VFs. It's meaningless >and will release the allocated resources which leads to a bug. > >Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >--- > drivers/pci/pci.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c >index be8f72c..6ae02de 100644 >--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c >+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c >@@ -4822,6 +4822,10 @@ void pci_reassigndev_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev) > resource_size_t align, size; > u16 command; > >+ /* We should never try to reassign VF's alignment */ >+ if (dev->is_virtfn) >+ return; >+ Yongji, I think it's correct to ignore VF's BARs. Another concern is: it's safe to apply alignment to PF's IOV BARs? Lets have an extreme example here: one PF has 16 VFs; each VF has only one 1KB. It means the only PF IOV BAR is 16KB. I don't see how it works after expanding it to 64KB which is the page size. It might be not a problem on PowerNV platform, but potentially a issue on x86? > /* check if specified PCI is target device to reassign */ > align = pci_specified_resource_alignment(dev); > if (!align) Thanks, Gavin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
