[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 2/2] nodedev: Expose PCI header type



On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:07:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:05:18PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:51:06PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> If we expose this information, which is one byte in every PCI config
> file, we let all mgmt apps know whether the device itself is an endpoint
> or not so it's easier for them to decide whether such device can be
> passed through into a VM (endpoint) or not (*-bridge).
>
> Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317531
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan redhat com>
> ---
>  docs/schemas/nodedev.rng                           | 12 ++++++++
>  src/conf/node_device_conf.c                        | 24 ++++++++++++++++
>  src/conf/node_device_conf.h                        |  1 +
>  src/libvirt_private.syms                           |  3 ++
>  src/node_device/node_device_udev.c                 |  3 ++
>  src/util/virpci.c                                  | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  src/util/virpci.h                                  | 12 ++++++++
>  .../pci_0000_00_02_0_header_type.xml               | 16 +++++++++++
>  .../pci_0000_00_1c_0_header_type.xml               | 20 +++++++++++++
>  tests/nodedevxml2xmltest.c                         |  2 ++
>  10 files changed, 126 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tests/nodedevschemadata/pci_0000_00_02_0_header_type.xml
>  create mode 100644 tests/nodedevschemadata/pci_0000_00_1c_0_header_type.xml
>
> diff --git a/docs/schemas/nodedev.rng b/docs/schemas/nodedev.rng
> index 744dccdf5fa9..33637546e48f 100644
> --- a/docs/schemas/nodedev.rng
> +++ b/docs/schemas/nodedev.rng
> @@ -169,6 +169,18 @@
>      </optional>
>
>      <optional>
> +      <element name='header'>
> +        <attribute name='type'>
> +          <choice>
> +            <value>endpoint</value>
> +            <value>pci-bridge</value>
> +            <value>cardbus-bridge</value>
> +          </choice>
> +        </attribute>
> +      </element>
> +    </optional>

As before, I think we should be using a capability to express this
not creating a new way to express capabilities without calling
them capabilities.

Oh and I should say I don't think we need to express 'endpoint' as
a capability. It would suffice to justhave

 <capability type="pci">
     ...
     <capability type="pci-bridge"/>
     ...
 </capability>

or

 <capability type="pci">
     ...
     <capability type="cardbus-bridge"/>
     ...
 </capability>

Any device without one of those two would implicitly be an end point


Oh, so you meant capability *inside* the PCI one.  I misunderstood that,
that makes sense.  I'll send a v3 for that.

Martin

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]