Re: [PATCH v2] PCI hotplug Eq v2

From: Derrick, Jonathan
Date: Mon Sep 17 2018 - 17:02:38 EST

On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 15:53 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:11:59PM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay on this one and pushing it after RC1.
> > Feel free to queue it up for 4.20 if it looks fine.
> >
> > I've added comments to the git log and source explaining why
> > calculate_iosize was left unchanged. Basically I could not
> > synthesize a condition where it would have affected the topology.
> In other words, the only reason you didn't change the
> calculate_iosize() path was because you couldn't test it?
I did unsuccessfully try to synthesize it in hardware and qemu. The
firmwares didn't provide the neccessary topology to hit the flexible IO
provisioning conditions

> I appreciate your desire to avoid untested changes, but I think it's
> very important to preserve and even improve the symmetry between
> calculate_memsize() and calculate_iosize(). For example, it's not
> obvious why the order is different here:
> calculate_iosize():
> size = ALIGN(size + size1, align);
> if (size < old_size)
> size = old_size;
I agree this part didn't make that much sense to me, which was another
reason I left it as-is. Looking at it again, I think its a harmless
calculation that bounds IO size tightly, but could also be reordered as
below to provide for the additional IO (assuming this code ever runs).

> calculate_memsize():
> if (size < old_size)
> size = old_size;
> size = ALIGN(size + size1, align);
> So I don't want to diverge them further unless there's a real
> functional reason why we need to handle I/O port space differently
> than MMIO space.
> You've tested the MMIO path, and I'm willing to take the risk of
> doing the same thing in the I/O port path.
> Bjorn
Great! I'll follow-up with a patch as soon as I can


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature