On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:28:18AM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> Hi, Jan!
>
> On 18.11.21 18:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 05.11.2021 07:56, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> >> @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ struct vpci {
> >> struct vpci_arch_msix_entry arch;
> >> } entries[];
> >> } *msix;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT
> >> + /* Virtual SBDF of the device. */
> >> + pci_sbdf_t guest_sbdf;
> > Would vsbdf perhaps be better in line with things like vpci or vcpu
> > (as well as with the comment here)?
> This is the same as guest_addr...
> @Roger what is your preference here?
I'm fine with using guest_ here, but the comment should be slightly
adjusted to s/Virtual/Guest/ IMO. It's already inline with other
guest_ fields added in the series anyway.
Just to confirm, such guest_sbdf is strictly to be used by
unprivileged domains, dom0 will never get such a virtual PCI bus?
Thanks, Roger.
