On 21.05.2025 13:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:29:26AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 16.05.2025 10:31, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> For once the message printed when a BAR overlaps with a non-hole regions is >>> not accurate on x86. While the BAR won't be mapped by the vPCI logic, it >>> is quite likely overlapping with a reserved region in the memory map, and >>> already mapped as by default all reserved regions are identity mapped in >>> the p2m. Fix the message so it just warns about the overlap, without >>> mentioning that the BAR won't be mapped, as this has caused confusion in >>> the past. >> >> I was trying to get back to this, but my attempt to use this "fixed >> message" as an anchor failed: You don't modify any existing message, and >> hence I was unable to determine which other message you refer to here. >> None of the ones I looked at appear to fit this description. > > OK, it's a bit tricky. Note how the new implementation of > pci_check_bar() unconditionally returns true, which means the message > in modify_bars() will never be printed on x86. Instead a slightly > different warning message is printed in the x86 implementation of > pci_check_bar(). > > That's what the above paragraph attempts to explain. > > Maybe I need to adjust the last sentence so it's: > > "Avoiding printing the warning message in modify_bars(), and instead > print a more lax message in the x86 implementation of pci_check_bar() > to note the current BAR position overlaps with non-hole region(s)." > > Does the above make it a bit clearer?
Yes, it definitely does. And with use of that I'm now also feeling reasonably confident to offer Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Jan
