9:58 a.m.
On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 16:02 +0800, Yi Min Zhao wrote:
This patch adds new functions for reservation, assignment and
release
to handle the uid/fid. If the uid/fid is defined in the domain XML,
they will be reserved directly in collecting phase. If any of them is
not defined, we will find out an available value for it from zPCI
address hashtable, and reserve it. For hotplug case, there might be or
not zPCI definition. So allocate and reserve uid/fid for undefined
case. Assign if needed and reserve uid/fid for defined case. If the user
define zPCI extension address but zPCI capability doesn't exist, an
error will be reported.
For this patch I once again didn't look too closely to the
implementation, sorry.
[...]
+static int
+virDomainZPCIAddressReserveId(virHashTablePtr set, unsigned int id,
+ const char *name)
One argument per line, please.
There are more instances in the patch, but I'm not going to
point them all out :)
[...]
+static int
+virDomainZPCIAddressAssignUid(virHashTablePtr set, virZPCIDeviceAddressPtr addr)
+{
+ if (addr->uid_assigned)
+ return 0;
+
+ addr->uid_assigned = virDomainZPCIAddressAssignId(set, &addr->zpci_uid,
1,
+ VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ZPCI_MAX_UID, "uid");
Messed up alignment. More instances further down.
[...]
+static void
+virDomainZPCIAddressReleaseUid(virHashTablePtr set, virZPCIDeviceAddressPtr addr)
+{
+ if (!addr->uid_assigned)
+ return;
+
+ if (virHashRemoveEntry(set, &addr->zpci_uid))
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
+ _("Release uid %u failed"), addr->zpci_uid);
Curly braces are required here. More instances further down.
Looking at
+static void
+virDomainZPCIAddressReleaseFid(virHashTablePtr set, virZPCIDeviceAddressPtr addr)
and
+static void
+virDomainZPCIAddressReleaseIds(virDomainZPCIAddressIdsPtr zpciIds,
+ virPCIDeviceAddressPtr addr)
and
+static int
+virDomainZPCIAddressReserveAddr(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs,
+ virPCIDeviceAddressPtr addr)
you're being awfully inconsistent about the datatypes you're passing
around...
Unless I've missed something that makes doing so impossible, please
try to make it so only the top-level datatypes (DomainPCIAddressSet
and PCIDeviceAddress) are passed around.
[...]
+static int
+virDomainZPCIAddressReserveNextAddr(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs,
+ virZPCIDeviceAddressPtr zpci)
+{
+ if (!zpci->uid_assigned &&
+ virDomainZPCIAddressReserveNextUid(addrs->zpciIds->uids, zpci))
+ return -1;
Messed up indentation. Also, missing curly braces.
[...]
+int
+virDomainPCIAddressExtensionReserveAddr(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs,
+ virPCIDeviceAddressPtr addr,
+ virDomainPCIAddressExtensionFlags extFlags)
+{
+ if (extFlags & VIR_PCI_ADDRESS_EXTENSION_ZPCI) {
+ /* Reserve uid/fid to ZPCI device which has defined uid/fid
+ * in the domain.
+ */
Messed up indentation.
[...]
+int
+virDomainPCIAddressExtensionReserveNextAddr(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs,
+ virPCIDeviceAddressPtr dev,
+ virDomainPCIAddressExtensionFlags extFlags)
+{
+ if (extFlags & VIR_PCI_ADDRESS_EXTENSION_ZPCI) {
+ /* Assign and reserve uid/fid to ZPCI device which has not defined uid/fid
+ * in the domain.
+ */
Messed up indentation.
[...]
+static int
+virDomainPCIAddressEnsureExtensionAddr(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs,
+ virDomainDeviceInfoPtr dev)
This should be virDomainPCIAddressExtensionEnsureAddr() for
consistency's sake.
@@ -1385,7 +1403,12 @@ qemuDomainCollectPCIAddress(virDomainDefPtr
def ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
* parent, and will have its address collected during the scan
* of the parent's device type.
*/
- return 0;
+ if (info->type == VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_PCI ||
+ info->type == VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_NONE)
+ return virDomainPCIAddressExtensionReserveAddr(addrs, addr,
+
info->pciAddressExtFlags);
+ else
+ return 0;
This doesn't look right: the comment specifically states that the
PCI address will be handled by the parent device in this case,
why wouldn't the zPCI address not be handled in the same way?
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization