Re: [PATCH] VT-d: improve RMRR validity checking

[Weidong Han <weidong.han@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 21/01/2010 10:19, "Weidong Han" <weidong.han@intel.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> Sorry this is typo.
>>> I mean:
>>> So, I think RMRR that has no-existent device is "invalid"
>>> and whole RMRR should be ignored.
>>>   
>>>       
>> looks reasonable.
>>
>> Keir, I Acks Noboru's rmrr patch. Or do you want us to merge them to one
>> patch?
>>     
>
> Merge them up, re-send with both sign-off and acked-by all in one email.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Keir
>
>   
Sorry, I disagree with Noboru after thinking it again. If the RMRR has 
both no-existent device and also has existent devices in its scope, we 
should not ignore it because the existent devices under its scope will 
be impacted without the RMRR. so I suggest to print a warning instead of 
ignore it. Attached a patch for it.

Signed-off-by: Weidong Han <weidong.han@intel.com>

[-- Attachment #2: rmrr-warning.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

diff -r ea02c95af387 xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c	Thu Jan 21 09:13:46 2010 +0000
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c	Thu Jan 21 18:43:53 2010 +0800
@@ -453,7 +453,13 @@ acpi_parse_one_rmrr(struct acpi_dmar_ent
             f = PCI_FUNC(rmrru->scope.devices[i]);
 
             if ( pci_device_detect(b, d, f) == 0 )
+            {
+                dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX,
+                    "  Non-existent device (%x:%x.%x) is reported "
+                    "in RMRR (%"PRIx64", %"PRIx64")'s scope!\n",
+                    b, d, f, rmrru->base_address, rmrru->end_address);
                 ignore = 1;
+            }
             else
             {
                 ignore = 0;

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel