From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Weidong Han <weidong.han@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VT-d: improve RMRR validity checking
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:49:06 +0800
Message-ID: <4B583122.6030002@intel.com>
References: <C77DDC8C.6F44%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030808060605040407060004"
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C77DDC8C.6F44%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Noboru Iwamatsu <n_iwamatsu@jp.fujitsu.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030808060605040407060004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 21/01/2010 10:19, "Weidong Han" <weidong.han@intel.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> Sorry this is typo.
>>> I mean:
>>> So, I think RMRR that has no-existent device is "invalid"
>>> and whole RMRR should be ignored.
>>>   
>>>       
>> looks reasonable.
>>
>> Keir, I Acks Noboru's rmrr patch. Or do you want us to merge them to one
>> patch?
>>     
>
> Merge them up, re-send with both sign-off and acked-by all in one email.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Keir
>
>   
Sorry, I disagree with Noboru after thinking it again. If the RMRR has 
both no-existent device and also has existent devices in its scope, we 
should not ignore it because the existent devices under its scope will 
be impacted without the RMRR. so I suggest to print a warning instead of 
ignore it. Attached a patch for it.

Signed-off-by: Weidong Han <weidong.han@intel.com>

--------------030808060605040407060004
Content-Type: text/plain;
 name="rmrr-warning.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="rmrr-warning.patch"

diff -r ea02c95af387 xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c	Thu Jan 21 09:13:46 2010 +0000
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c	Thu Jan 21 18:43:53 2010 +0800
@@ -453,7 +453,13 @@ acpi_parse_one_rmrr(struct acpi_dmar_ent
             f = PCI_FUNC(rmrru->scope.devices[i]);
 
             if ( pci_device_detect(b, d, f) == 0 )
+            {
+                dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX,
+                    "  Non-existent device (%x:%x.%x) is reported "
+                    "in RMRR (%"PRIx64", %"PRIx64")'s scope!\n",
+                    b, d, f, rmrru->base_address, rmrru->end_address);
                 ignore = 1;
+            }
             else
             {
                 ignore = 0;

--------------030808060605040407060004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

--------------030808060605040407060004--