On 11/02/2015 12:27 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
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?
The problem is that pci_iov_set_numvfs has side effects visible to the
user since they can read NumVFs lspci and via sysfs. As such we want to
keep the two in sync, and if you get the bus error here that is not the
case.
That is why you must call pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, 0) if this fails.
- Alex
--
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
