From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B9CC433ED for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 779EB6101E for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 779EB6101E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.130700.244676 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljdKr-0005s2-AL; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:13 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 130700.244676; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljdKr-0005rv-6n; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:13 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 130700; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:12 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljdKq-0005rp-NF for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:12 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 934488d6-0b22-4aab-b263-f889b650697e; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B022B148; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:43:11 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 934488d6-0b22-4aab-b263-f889b650697e X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1621496591; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Fm7akdWL3Mft1M3L5KThdacJthcmV01J56Xd2xuO7so=; b=kIKysHJFAjOqZR+0HLtpbIKhUdZ8nIN//cmsY2w1EvdUzfTFlvhI/zm4gNx9D+izLpRkUm EJAx60oIq8RPFzUzrR9SInyTcjTPQ9XCRauvLHH7o2plmdraCHO5ovCJHNkiUHeHffhYEI QPU4PN0kp4e603rokI1Njzdn/cPrRt0= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] xen-pciback: redo VF placement in the virtual topology To: Boris Ostrovsky Cc: Juergen Gross , Konrad Wilk , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" References: <38774140-871d-59a4-cf49-9cb1cc78c381@suse.com> <8def783b-404c-3452-196d-3f3fd4d72c9e@suse.com> <87d771dd-8b00-4101-b76b-21087ea1b1df@oracle.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <214a6c61-5f6a-d841-312a-be2abb95f77a@suse.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 09:43:10 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87d771dd-8b00-4101-b76b-21087ea1b1df@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 20.05.2021 02:36, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > On 5/18/21 12:13 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> @@ -95,22 +95,25 @@ static int __xen_pcibk_add_pci_dev(struc >> >> /* >> * Keep multi-function devices together on the virtual PCI bus, except >> - * virtual functions. >> + * that we want to keep virtual functions at func 0 on their own. They >> + * aren't multi-function devices and hence their presence at func 0 >> + * may cause guests to not scan the other functions. > > > So your reading of the original commit is that whatever the issue it was, only function zero was causing the problem? In other words, you are not concerned that pci_scan_slot() may now look at function 1 and skip all higher-numbered function (assuming the problem is still there)? I'm not sure I understand the question: Whether to look at higher numbered slots is a function of slot 0's multi-function bit alone, aiui. IOW if slot 1 is being looked at in the first place, slots 2-7 should also be looked at. Jan