On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 09:46:42AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.10.2025 16:14, Roger Pau Monne 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.
>
> While easiest, that's an odd interface, though. Should, at the very least the
> function parameter then be named e.g. "segbus", along the lines of "devfn"?
I certainly don't mind using segbus instead of plain bus, will adjust
now.
> > Fixes: 7620c0cf9a4d ("PCI multi-seg: add new physdevop-s")
>
> This commit wasn't about tool stack uses of the interfaces at all.
But there should have been a tools side change somewhere to make use
of that interface, at the point that support for multi-segment was
added to Xen? Otherwise the support feels like half done.
Would you prefer me to use the "Amends:" tag? Or no tag at all.
Thanks, Roger.
