From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v8][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: disable all pci
 devices conflicting with rdm
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 05:15:59 +0800
Message-ID: <55A81F0F.7090006@intel.com>
References: <1437029582-19564-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1437029582-19564-7-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<CAFLBxZZhDHi2XQ9UYkt6gfEiVMNRGxxer3zNptFGVsns2OYOfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55A79AFA.3040500@intel.com>
	<CAFLBxZY86xDsNKO9zHMouk+sEPuCcYaR_49TQ87zjXxtBPqKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55A7AFF4.1040909@intel.com>
	<55A7CE890200007800091EC8@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A7B647.8080808@intel.com>
	<55A7E1C30200007800091F48@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A7CBBA.90606@intel.com> <55A7D040.809@citrix.com>
	<CAFLBxZZQri1QJoEsyYb0P=DBHw5ZtzQg106P5BKojUONYR-7Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFLBxZZQri1QJoEsyYb0P=DBHw5ZtzQg106P5BKojUONYR-7Eg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>
>           base = (resource->base  + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
> +
> +        /* If we're using mem_resource, check for RMRR conflicts */
> +        while ( resource == &mem_resource &&
> +                next_rmrr > 0 &&
> +                check_overlap(base, bar_sz,
> +                              memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr,
> +                              memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size)) {
> +            base = memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr +
> memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size;
> +            base = (resource->base  + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1);
> +            next_rmrr=find_next_rmrr(base);
> +        }
> +
>           bar_data |= (uint32_t)base;
>           bar_data_upper = (uint32_t)(base >> 32);
>           base += bar_sz;
>

Actually this chunk of codes are really similar as what we did in my 
previous revisions from RFC ~ v3. It's just trying to skip and then 
allocate, right? As Jan pointed out, there are two key problems:

#1. All skipping action probably cause a result of no sufficient MMIO to 
allocate all devices as before.

#2. Another is that alignment issue. When the original "base" change to 
align to rdm_end, some spaces are wasted. Especially, these spaces could 
be allocated to other smaller bars.

This is one key reason why I had new revision started from v4 to address 
these two points :)

Thanks
Tiejun