On 18.10.2025 06:46, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 3:26 PM Roger Pau Monne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Otherwise it's not possible for device models to map IRQs of devices on >> segments different than 0. Keep the same function prototype and pass the >> segment in the high 16bits of the bus parameter, like it's done for the >> hypercall itself. >> >> Fixes: 7620c0cf9a4d ("PCI multi-seg: add new physdevop-s") >> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> >> --- >> I think it's 4.21 material, as otherwise it's not possible to passthrough >> PCI devices on segments != 0. >> --- >> tools/libs/ctrl/xc_physdev.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/libs/ctrl/xc_physdev.c b/tools/libs/ctrl/xc_physdev.c >> index 25e686d7b389..1307d6836d72 100644 >> --- a/tools/libs/ctrl/xc_physdev.c >> +++ b/tools/libs/ctrl/xc_physdev.c >> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ int xc_physdev_map_pirq_msi(xc_interface *xch, >> } >> memset(&map, 0, sizeof(struct physdev_map_pirq)); >> map.domid = domid; >> - map.type = MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI; >> + map.type = MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI_SEG; >> map.index = index; >> map.pirq = *pirq; >> map.bus = bus; > > Reviewed-by: Frediano Ziglio <[email protected]> > > This was tested on a real machine. > > About MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI and MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI_SEG, do we need to keep > ABI compatibility or we should just remove MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI_SEG and > make MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI consider the segment ?
Assuming you talk about the hypervisor interface, could you explain how you see breaking ABI compatibility to not break anything? These aren't tools-only interfaces, after all. Jan
