On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:03:54AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>On 10/29/2015 10:22 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:23:36PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>From: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>VF bus numbers depend on the First VF Offset and VF Stride, and per
>>>sections 3.3.9 and 3.3.10 of the SR-IOV spec r1.1, these depend on the
>>>NumVF value.
>>>
>>>Wait until after we set NumVFs to compute and validate the bus number of
>>>the last VF.
>>>
>>>[bhelgaas: changelog, add spec reference, split to separate patch for
>>>reviewability]
>>>Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>---
>>>drivers/pci/iov.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>>1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>>index bd1c4fa..9d29712 100644
>>>--- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>>+++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>>@@ -274,13 +274,6 @@ static int sriov_enable(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>> }
>>>
>>>- bus = pci_iov_virtfn_bus(dev, nr_virtfn - 1);
>>>- if (bus > dev->bus->busn_res.end) {
>>>- dev_err(&dev->dev, "can't enable %d VFs (bus %02x out of range of %pR)\n",
>>>- nr_virtfn, bus, &dev->bus->busn_res);
>>>- return -ENOMEM;
>>>- }
>>>-
>>> if (pci_enable_resources(dev, bars)) {
>>> dev_err(&dev->dev, "SR-IOV: IOV BARS not allocated\n");
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>@@ -304,6 +297,15 @@ static int sriov_enable(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
>>> }
>>>
>>> pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, nr_virtfn);
>>How about move it up?
>
>The idea with moving the write down is to keep the pollution of the SR-IOV
>capability to a minimum. Basically we have addressed all of the possible
>software issues at this point so all that remains is possible hardware
>complications. In addition by moving this code down we only have to modify
>this code instead of adding "rc=X; goto foo;" in places where "return X;" was
>used.
>
I think your logic is clear, while it is not easy to classify the software
issue and hardware complications. For example, at the beginning of
sriov_enable(), the hardware value initial VFs number is checked.
And in my mind, this is reasonable to check the hardware issue before software
issue.
For your comment, adding "rc=X; goto foo;", I don't see this would happen.
The code in my mind would like this:
+ pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, nr_virtfn);
bus = pci_iov_virtfn_bus(dev, nr_virtfn - 1);
if (bus > dev->bus->busn_res.end) {
dev_err(&dev->dev, "can't enable %d VFs (bus %02x out of range of %pR)\n",
nr_virtfn, bus, &dev->bus->busn_res);
return -ENOMEM;
}
if (pci_enable_resources(dev, bars)) {
dev_err(&dev->dev, "SR-IOV: IOV BARS not allocated\n");
return -ENOMEM;
Do I missed something?
>Also this is an exception case. There really isn't much point in optimizing
>for something that should never really happen.
>
>>>+
>>>+ bus = pci_iov_virtfn_bus(dev, nr_virtfn - 1);
>>>+ if (bus > dev->bus->busn_res.end) {
>>>+ dev_err(&dev->dev, "can't enable %d VFs (bus %02x out of range of %pR)\n",
>>>+ nr_virtfn, bus, &dev->bus->busn_res);
>>>+ rc = -ENOMEM;
>>>+ goto err_bus;
>>>+ }
>>>+
>>> iov->ctrl |= PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VFE | PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_MSE;
>>> pci_cfg_access_lock(dev);
>>> pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_CTRL, iov->ctrl);
>>>@@ -342,7 +344,7 @@ err_pcibios:
>>> pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_CTRL, iov->ctrl);
>>> ssleep(1);
>>> pci_cfg_access_unlock(dev);
>>>-
>>>+err_bus:
>>> if (iov->link != dev->devfn)
>>> sysfs_remove_link(&dev->dev.kobj, "dep_link");
>>>
>
>--
>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
--
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me
--
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
