On 12.01.2022 16:15, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 01:02:44PM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
>> @@ -137,45 +137,86 @@ bool vpci_process_pending(struct vcpu *v)
>> return false;
>>
>> spin_lock(&pdev->vpci_lock);
>> - if ( !pdev->vpci_cancel_pending && v->vpci.mem )
>> + if ( !pdev->vpci )
>> + {
>> + spin_unlock(&pdev->vpci_lock);
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if ( !pdev->vpci_cancel_pending && v->vpci.map_pending )
>> {
>> struct map_data data = {
>> .d = v->domain,
>> .map = v->vpci.cmd & PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY,
>> };
>> - int rc = rangeset_consume_ranges(v->vpci.mem, map_range, &data);
>> + struct vpci_header *header = &pdev->vpci->header;
>> + unsigned int i;
>>
>> - if ( rc == -ERESTART )
>> + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(header->bars); i++ )
>> {
>> - spin_unlock(&pdev->vpci_lock);
>> - return true;
>> - }
>> + struct vpci_bar *bar = &header->bars[i];
>> + int rc;
>> +
>
> You should check bar->mem != NULL here, there's no need to allocate a
> rangeset for non-mappable BARs.
There's a NULL check ...
>> + if ( rangeset_is_empty(bar->mem) )
>> + continue;
... inside rangeset_is_empty() (to help callers like this one).
Jan
