On 13/03/18 05:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:31:55PM +0000, Stephen Bates wrote: > If it *is* necessary because Root Ports and devices below them behave > differently than in conventional PCI, I think you should include a > reference to the relevant section of the spec and check directly for a > Root Port. I would prefer that over trying to exclude Root Ports by > looking for two upstream bridges. Well we've established that we don't want to allow root ports. But we need to, at a minimum, do two pci_upstream_bridge() calls... Remember, we need to check that a number of devices are behind the same switch. So we need to find a _common_ upstream port for several devices. Excluding the multifunction device case (which I don't think is applicable for reasons we've discussed before), this will *never* be the first upstream port for a given device. We need to find the upstream port of the switch and ensure all devices share that same port. If a device is behind a switch, it's pci_upstream_bridge() is the downstream switch port which is unique to that device. So a peer device would have a different pci_upstream_bridge() port but share the same pci_upstream_bridge(pci_upstream_bridge()) port (assuming they are on the same switch). The alternative, is to walk the entire tree of upstream ports and check that all devices have a common port somewhere in the tree that isn't the root complex. Arguably this is the right way to do it and would support a network of switches but is a fair bit more complex to code. Logan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
