On 12.06.2025 11:29, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c
> @@ -703,9 +703,13 @@ static int cf_check init_msix(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> pdev->vpci->msix = msix;
> list_add(&msix->next, &d->arch.hvm.msix_tables);
>
> - return 0;
> + spin_lock(&pdev->vpci->lock);
> + rc = vpci_make_msix_hole(pdev);
> + spin_unlock(&pdev->vpci->lock);
If you add a call to vpci_make_msix_hole() here, doesn't it need (or at
least want) removing somewhere else? Otherwise maybe a code comment is
warranted next to the new call site?
> @@ -29,9 +30,22 @@ typedef int vpci_register_init_t(struct pci_dev *dev);
> */
> #define VPCI_MAX_VIRT_DEV (PCI_SLOT(~0) + 1)
>
> -#define REGISTER_VPCI_INIT(x, p) \
> - static vpci_register_init_t *const x##_entry \
> - __used_section(".data.vpci." p) = (x)
> +#define REGISTER_VPCI_CAPABILITY(cap, finit, fclean, ext) \
> + static const vpci_capability_t finit##_t = { \
> + .id = (cap), \
> + .init = (finit), \
> + .cleanup = (fclean), \
> + .is_ext = (ext), \
> + }; \
> + static const vpci_capability_t *const finit##_entry \
> + __used_section(".data.rel.ro.vpci") = &finit##_t
Could you remind me why the extra level of indirection is necessary here?
That is, why can't .data.rel.ro.vpci be an array of vpci_capability_t?
Jan
