On 6/4/24 8:00 PM, Jessica Clarke wrote:
On 5 Jun 2024, at 00:52, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
The branch main has been updated by jhb:
URL:
https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=871b33ad65baf07c92cce120a4fc1978c2ed7b3b
commit 871b33ad65baf07c92cce120a4fc1978c2ed7b3b
Author: John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org>
AuthorDate: 2024-06-04 23:51:37 +0000
Commit: John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org>
CommitDate: 2024-06-04 23:51:37 +0000
pci: Consistently use pci_vf_* for suballocated VF memory resources
Some of the bus resource methods were passing these up to the parent
which triggered rman mismatch assertions in INVARIANTS kernels.
Reported by: kp
Reviewed by: imp
Tested by: kp (earlier version)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D45406
---
sys/dev/pci/pci.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
sys/dev/pci/pci_iov.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sys/dev/pci/pci_private.h | 19 ++++++
3 files changed, 284 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sys/dev/pci/pci.c b/sys/dev/pci/pci.c
index 2cb8b4ce9fcc..2093d6a8b5ef 100644
--- a/sys/dev/pci/pci.c
+++ b/sys/dev/pci/pci.c
@@ -164,10 +164,18 @@ static device_method_t pci_methods[] = {
DEVMETHOD(bus_get_resource, bus_generic_rl_get_resource),
DEVMETHOD(bus_delete_resource, pci_delete_resource),
DEVMETHOD(bus_alloc_resource, pci_alloc_resource),
+#ifdef PCI_IOV
+ DEVMETHOD(bus_adjust_resource, pci_adjust_resource),
+#else
DEVMETHOD(bus_adjust_resource, bus_generic_adjust_resource),
+#endif
DEVMETHOD(bus_release_resource, pci_release_resource),
DEVMETHOD(bus_activate_resource, pci_activate_resource),
DEVMETHOD(bus_deactivate_resource, pci_deactivate_resource),
+#ifdef PCI_IOV
+ DEVMETHOD(bus_map_resource, pci_map_resource),
+ DEVMETHOD(bus_unmap_resource, pci_unmap_resource),
+#endif
DEVMETHOD(bus_child_deleted, pci_child_deleted),
DEVMETHOD(bus_child_detached, pci_child_detached),
DEVMETHOD(bus_child_pnpinfo, pci_child_pnpinfo_method),
Would it make sense to instead #ifdef parts of the body of
pci_adjust_resource rather than switching which function you’re using
in the first place? I feel that is generally easier to understand, as
there’s less conditionality, and it’s more easily extensible if any
other special cases come along.
Hmm, I could do that I guess. These aren't hot paths so the
extra jump to a tail call in the #ifndef case isn't that bad, and it
probably is a bit more readable.
In related news, you should really land your patches to enable
NEW_PCIB and PCI_RES_BUS by default (and remove the !NEW_PCIB
code). :)
--
John Baldwin
