| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [VTD] Remove PCI device enumeration for dom0 in
|
To: |
"Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [VTD] Remove PCI device enumeration for dom0 in Xen |
|
From: |
Espen Skoglund <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:19:49 +0100 |
|
Cc: |
"Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>, "Zhao, Yu" <yu.zhao@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Espen Skoglund <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:21:09 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<0122C7C995D32147B66BF4F440D3016301E795BD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<18687.7900.317457.856048@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C524DE97.28520%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0122C7C995D32147B66BF4F440D3016301E795BD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
[Weidong Han]
> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 22/10/08 13:38, "Espen Skoglund" <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Users of pci_lock_pdev() and pci_lock_domain_pdev() would not be
>>> able to find the PCI device unless it has been registered by dom0.
>>> Apart from the iommu code, the only user affected would be the MSI
>>> code which looks up the PCI device before enabling MSIs on it. As
>>> such, you would not be able to enable MSIs if you have an old dom0
>>> kernel.
>>
>> Is there any disadvantage to keeping this legacy code in Xen, apart
>> from it annoyingly sitting there?
>>
> At present, I don't see any other disadvantage on functionality,
> apart from it annoyingly sitting there and it allocates two pdev for
> the same bdf.
Allocates two pdevs? How? alloc_pdev() will not allocate a new pdev
if the bdf already exists. It will just return the existing one.
eSk
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home