[PATCH] Enlarge the size of the global mmio_space mmio[].

[Cui, Dexuan]

With the Multi-Function passthrough, we're actually able to assign more than
32 functions to guest, so we should enlarge the MAX_MMIO. 1024 should be big
enough.

Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@...>

diff --git a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
index d0685af..2603de1 100644
--- a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
+++ b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
@@ -275,13 +275,13 @@ void cpu_abort(CPUState *env, const char *fmt, ...)
 
 
 /* XXX: Simple implementation. Fix later */
-#define MAX_MMIO 32
+#define MAX_MMIO 1024
 static struct mmio_space {
         target_phys_addr_t start;
         unsigned long size;
         unsigned long io_index;
 } mmio[MAX_MMIO];
-unsigned long mmio_cnt;
+static unsigned long mmio_cnt;
 
 /* register physical memory. 'size' must be a multiple of the target
    page size. If (phys_offset & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) != 0, then it is an


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@...
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

[Simon Horman]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:29:12PM +0800, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> With the Multi-Function passthrough, we're actually able to assign more than
> 32 functions to guest, so we should enlarge the MAX_MMIO. 1024 should be big
> enough.

Would 265 (= 32 * 8) be big enough?
Or is it harmless to go to 1024 anyway?

>
> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@...>
>
> diff --git a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> index d0685af..2603de1 100644
> --- a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> +++ b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> @@ -275,13 +275,13 @@ void cpu_abort(CPUState *env, const char *fmt, ...)
>  
>  
>  /* XXX: Simple implementation. Fix later */
> -#define MAX_MMIO 32
> +#define MAX_MMIO 1024
>  static struct mmio_space {
>          target_phys_addr_t start;
>          unsigned long size;
>          unsigned long io_index;
>  } mmio[MAX_MMIO];
> -unsigned long mmio_cnt;
> +static unsigned long mmio_cnt;
>  
>  /* register physical memory. 'size' must be a multiple of the target
>     page size. If (phys_offset & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) != 0, then it is an

> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@...
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

[Cui, Dexuan]

Hi Simon,
256 may be not enough as 1 function can consume more than 1 entry in that array.
1024 is harmless and should be enough, I think. :-)

Thanks,
-- Dexuan

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horman [mailto:horms@...]
Sent: 2009?11?7? 21:08
To: Cui, Dexuan
Cc: Ian Jackson; xen-devel@...
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Enlarge the size of the global mmio_space mmio[].

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:29:12PM +0800, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> With the Multi-Function passthrough, we're actually able to assign more than
> 32 functions to guest, so we should enlarge the MAX_MMIO. 1024 should be big
> enough.

Would 265 (= 32 * 8) be big enough?
Or is it harmless to go to 1024 anyway?

>
> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@...>
>
> diff --git a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> index d0685af..2603de1 100644
> --- a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> +++ b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> @@ -275,13 +275,13 @@ void cpu_abort(CPUState *env, const char *fmt, ...)
>  
>  
>  /* XXX: Simple implementation. Fix later */
> -#define MAX_MMIO 32
> +#define MAX_MMIO 1024
>  static struct mmio_space {
>          target_phys_addr_t start;
>          unsigned long size;
>          unsigned long io_index;
>  } mmio[MAX_MMIO];
> -unsigned long mmio_cnt;
> +static unsigned long mmio_cnt;
>  
>  /* register physical memory. 'size' must be a multiple of the target
>     page size. If (phys_offset & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) != 0, then it is an

> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@...
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:05:44AM +0800, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 256 may be not enough as 1 function can consume more than 1 entry in that array.
> 1024 is harmless and should be enough, I think. :-)

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms@...>

> Thanks,
> -- Dexuan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman [mailto:horms@...]
> Sent: 2009?11?7? 21:08
> To: Cui, Dexuan
> Cc: Ian Jackson; xen-devel@...
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Enlarge the size of the global mmio_space mmio[].
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:29:12PM +0800, Cui, Dexuan wrote:
> > With the Multi-Function passthrough, we're actually able to assign more than
> > 32 functions to guest, so we should enlarge the MAX_MMIO. 1024 should be big
> > enough.
>
> Would 265 (= 32 * 8) be big enough?
> Or is it harmless to go to 1024 anyway?
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@...>
> >
> > diff --git a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> > index d0685af..2603de1 100644
> > --- a/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> > +++ b/i386-dm/exec-dm.c
> > @@ -275,13 +275,13 @@ void cpu_abort(CPUState *env, const char *fmt, ...)
> >  
> >  
> >  /* XXX: Simple implementation. Fix later */
> > -#define MAX_MMIO 32
> > +#define MAX_MMIO 1024
> >  static struct mmio_space {
> >          target_phys_addr_t start;
> >          unsigned long size;
> >          unsigned long io_index;
> >  } mmio[MAX_MMIO];
> > -unsigned long mmio_cnt;
> > +static unsigned long mmio_cnt;
> >  
> >  /* register physical memory. 'size' must be a multiple of the target
> >     page size. If (phys_offset & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) != 0, then it is an
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@...
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@...
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel