From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v2][PATCH] xen/vtd/iommu: permit group devices to
 passthrough in relaxed mode
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:17:07 +0800
Message-ID: <55F77193.6090303@intel.com>
References: <1441763998-4937-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<55EFF3CE02000078000A1150@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D142B05A88@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<55F156E302000078000A18B4@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<20150910103720.GG8496@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D142B07EF5@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<55F2B34202000078000A201A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D1568EFA56@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<55F66839.6030501@intel.com>
	<55F6C22F02000078000A283A@prv-mh.provo.novell.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: <55F6C22F02000078000A283A@prv-mh.provo.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Yang Z Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>> But looks its not better, so any idea?
>
> Did you at least make an attempt to find other examples of where
> we dynamically determine the log level to be used for a message?
> I would assume that if you did, you'd have come to
>
>              printk(XENLOG_GUEST "%s" VTDPREFIX

I didn't know this tip on Xen side and its really good.

>                     " It's %s to assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
>                     " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.\n",
>                     relaxed ? XENLOG_WARNING : XENLOG_ERROR,
>                     relaxed ? "risky" : "disallowed",
>                     seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
>                     rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id);
>
> pretty naturally.
>

But I noticed my original patch is already merged into staging. So

Wei,

Do you think if we need a small patch to improved this? Maybe you can 
squash that if necessary.

Thanks
Tiejun