On 19.11.2021 14:41, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>
>
> On 19.11.21 15:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.11.2021 07:56, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> @@ -95,10 +102,25 @@ int vpci_add_handlers(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pdev->vpci->handlers);
>>> spin_lock_init(&pdev->vpci->lock);
>>>
>>> + header = &pdev->vpci->header;
>>> + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(header->bars); i++ )
>>> + {
>>> + struct vpci_bar *bar = &header->bars[i];
>>> +
>>> + bar->mem = rangeset_new(NULL, NULL, 0);
>> I don't recall why an anonymous range set was chosen back at the time
>> when vPCI was first implemented, but I think this needs to be changed
>> now that DomU-s get supported. Whether you do so right here or in a
>> prereq patch is secondary to me. It may be desirable to exclude them
>> from rangeset_domain_printk() (which would likely require a new
>> RANGESETF_* flag), but I think such resources should be associated
>> with their domains.
> What would be the proper name for such a range set then?
> "vpci_bar"?
E.g. bb:dd.f:BARn
Jan
