Re: [PATCH 3/3] passthrough: allow to suppress SERR and PERR signaling altogether

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 07/04/14 14:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.04.14 at 14:47, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 03/04/14 10:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> +        if ( val & PCI_STATUS_CHECK )
>>> +        {
>>> +            printk(XENLOG_INFO "%04x:%02x:%02x.%u status %04x\n",
>>> +                   seg, bus, dev, func, val);
>> What is the purpose of this printk?  From the text alone it is not obvious.
> It's simply to have an indication that the status register was written
> (and that certain bits may have got cleared).

Then at the very least it should be ..."status %04x -> %04x\n", ....
val, val & PCI_STATUS_CHECK) to identify which status bits are being
cleared.

>
>>> +            pci_conf_write16(seg, bus, dev, func, PCI_STATUS, val);
>> I dont think this code has any right to clear status bits other than the
>> ones it is checking for, so the write should be "val & PCI_STATUS_CHECK"
> Hmm, the intention is to clear all status fields that can be cleared, and
> the if() around the write is just to avoid the printk() and the write if
> possible. PCI_STATUS_CHECK already includes all changeable bits, and
> I'd expect any of the few that are currently reserved to get added
> here, should they attain a meaning of a writable one.
>
> Jan
>

For forward compatibility, we must not assume anything about currently
reserved bits which Xen doesn't know about.

If PCI_STATUS_CHECK is intended to be extended with future clearable
bits, perhaps naming it "PCI_STATUS_CLEARABLE" would be clearer.

~Andrew