From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LXdva-0002VJ-3Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:56:38 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LXdvY-0002RR-6q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:56:37 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40829 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LXdvY-0002RI-3u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:56:36 -0500
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:42498)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1LXdvX-0005DX-Jl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:56:35 -0500
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1CFuYcB015526
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:56:34 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:56:05 -0200
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [6609] Parse full PCI device addresses (Markus
	Armbruster)
Message-ID: <20090212155605.GA18654@amt.cnet>
References: <E1LXGuL-0004v2-7h@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>
	<200902121539.26892.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200902121539.26892.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 03:39:26PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > This code parses full PCI device addresses.  It then rejects domains
> > other than zero, because these are not supported in QEMU.
> >...
> > + * Parse [[<domain>:]<bus>:]<slot>, return -1 on error
> > + */
> > +static int pci_parse_devaddr(const char *addr, int *domp, int *busp,
> > unsigned *slotp) +{
> 
> If we're rejecting nonzero domains then having the parse routine return a 
> domain value seems wrong. It's just going to make it harder to verify correct 
> operation when domains are implemented.

+    /* Note: QEMU doesn't implement domains other than 0 */
+    if (dom != 0 || pci_find_bus(bus) == NULL) {
+       fprintf(stderr, "PCI device address %s not supported", addr);
+       return -1;
+    }

+    if (!strcmp(devaddr, "auto")) {
+        *domp = *busp = 0;
+        *slotp = -1;
+        /* want to support dom/bus auto-assign at some point */
+        return 0;
+    }

We return domain 0. I considered domain 0 as implicit at the moment, is
that wrong?

I can't see where you're getting at.