From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:31083 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752702AbbA2Bax (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:30:53 -0500 Message-ID: <54C98D25.1090004@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:30:13 +0800 From: Yijing Wang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjorn Helgaas , Boris Ostrovsky CC: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Alex Williamson , David Vrabel , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] PCI: Add guard to avoid mapping a invalid msix base address References: <1422409937-1875-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <20150128181358.GA17623@google.com> <54C94F0E.5020901@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> >> Right, I think it does. >> >> One question: do we need to check flags for IORESOURCE_DISABLED as well? >> Currently IORESOURCE_DISABLED and IORESOURCE_UNSET are set together for PCI >> so it probably doesn't matter right now but if this changes we won't want to >> use BAR that's disabled, will we? > > That's a good question. My intent was to use IORESOURCE_DISABLED for > cases where we don't want to even try to assign resources to a BAR, > e.g., for BARs that want more than 4GB of space when the kernel isn't > compiled with support for 64-bit BARs. In that case, I intended to > set IORESOURCE_UNSET as well. > > So I think we're OK with only testing IORESOURCE_UNSET. > > Yijing, do you want to expand this patch to fix > xen_initdom_setup_msi_irqs() as well? I'm willing to do. Thanks! Yijing. > > Bjorn > > . > -- Thanks! Yijing