On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:15 am Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:23:53PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > I applied 1-9 to my linux-next branch; and at least patch #10 needs a > > respin, > > I still object to #2. We should have the flexibility to have 'struct > resource's that are not in this array in the pci_dev. I would like to > see the SR-IOV resources _not_ in this array (and indeed, I'd like to > see PCI bridges keep their producer resources somewhere other than in > this array). I accept that there are still some problems with this, but > patch #2 moves us further from being able to achieve this goal, not > closer. Yeah, I can see what you mean here... but on the other hand it makes the existing code a bit clearer (no extra args), and really it doesn't push us *that* much further from non-pci_dev tied resources. Any patches in that direction will just get a few lines bigger, that's all. But I agree that eventually we may want to have non-pci_dev resource lists, especially if we start adding advanced host bridge drivers or something. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
