On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 29.01.15 at 04:54, <wangyijing@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>> @@ -694,11 +694,16 @@ static void __iomem *msix_map_region(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned nr_entries)
>> {
>> resource_size_t phys_addr;
>> u32 table_offset;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> u8 bir;
>>
>> pci_read_config_dword(dev, dev->msix_cap + PCI_MSIX_TABLE,
>> &table_offset);
>> bir = (u8)(table_offset & PCI_MSIX_TABLE_BIR);
>> + flags = pci_resource_flags(dev, bir);
>> + if (!flags || (flags & IORESOURCE_UNSET))
>> + return NULL;
>
> Mind explaining what relevance the checking of flags against zero has
> (also in the Xen counterpart)? The patch description says nothing in
> this regard...
It's buried in there:
> reset_resource() -->res->start/end/flags = 0
If we fail to assign resources to a BAR, in some cases we set
res->flags = 0. There are other cases where we set IORESOURCE_UNSET,
and that's the direction I want to go for all situations where we
don't assign resources. But right now, we have a mix where flags is
zero in some cases (including the one Zhang found), and has
IORESOURCE_UNSET in others.
I'll try to wordsmith this in the changelog when I apply this.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
