From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760825AbZEMRIc (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 13:08:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758798AbZEMRIX (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 13:08:23 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:52164 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758358AbZEMRIX (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 13:08:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0AFE84.2040805@goop.org> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:08:20 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesse Barnes CC: Ingo Molnar , the arch/x86 maintainers , Matthew Wilcox , Joerg Roedel , FUJITA Tomonori , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel , Alex Nixon , Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/PCI: Enable scanning of all pci functions References: <1242164891-3859-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <1242164891-3859-7-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090513095535.140134e1@jbarnes-g45> In-Reply-To: <20090513095535.140134e1@jbarnes-g45> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:07 -0700 > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > >> From: Alex Nixon >> >> Xen may want to enable scanning of all pci functions - if for example >> the device at function 0 is not passed through to the guest, but the >> device at function 1 is. >> >> [Impact: allow passthrough of just some PCI functions.] >> Signed-off-by: Alex Nixon >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge >> Reviewed-by: "H. Peter Anvin" >> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h | 8 +++++++- >> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h >> index b51a1e8..092706e 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pci_sysdata { >> extern int pci_routeirq; >> extern int noioapicquirk; >> extern int noioapicreroute; >> +extern int pci_scan_all_fns; >> >> /* scan a bus after allocating a pci_sysdata for it */ >> extern struct pci_bus *pci_scan_bus_on_node(int busno, struct >> pci_ops *ops, @@ -48,7 +49,11 @@ extern unsigned int >> pcibios_assign_all_busses(void); #else >> #define pcibios_assign_all_busses() 0 >> #endif >> -#define pcibios_scan_all_fns(a, b) 0 >> + >> +static inline int pcibios_scan_all_fns(struct pci_bus *bus, int >> devfn) +{ >> + return pci_scan_all_fns; >> +} >> >> extern unsigned long pci_mem_start; >> #define PCIBIOS_MIN_IO 0x1000 >> @@ -130,6 +135,7 @@ extern void pci_iommu_alloc(void); >> >> /* generic pci stuff */ >> #include >> +#undef pcibios_scan_all_fns >> > > This is a little gross... But then I don't see any places where it's > actually defined to something true either. I've got some code to set it in a series I haven't posted yet. > Maybe it should be a weak > function or a new HAVE_FOO define instead. > I'd probably go the weak function path if I were to do either of those, but do you think it would be significantly better? J