On 12/09/09 12:51, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
. and also to find the domain owner based on the PCI device and
to unregister a domain owner of a PCI device.
Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk<konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/xen/pci.h | 16 +++++++++
arch/x86/xen/pci.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/pci.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/pci.h
index cb84abe..f4312d5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/pci.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/pci.h
@@ -7,6 +7,11 @@ int xen_create_msi_irq(struct pci_dev *dev,
struct msi_desc *msidesc,
int type);
int xen_destroy_irq(int irq);
+
+int find_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev);
+int register_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev, domid_t domain);
+int unregister_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev);
Could you give these less generic names?
+
#else
static inline int xen_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int triggering, int polarity)
{
@@ -23,6 +28,17 @@ static inline int xen_destroy_irq(int irq)
{
return -1;
}
+
+static inline int find_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev) { return -1; }
+static inline int register_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev, domid_t domain)
+{
+ return -1;
+}
+static inline int unregister_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev)
+{
+ return -1;
+}
Make the formatting consistent here.
+
#endif
#if defined(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)&& defined(CONFIG_XEN_DOM0_PCI)
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/pci.c b/arch/x86/xen/pci.c
index 44d91ad..4fa734c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/pci.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/pci.c
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#include<linux/acpi.h>
#include<linux/pci.h>
#include<linux/msi.h>
+#include<linux/slab.h>
#include<asm/mpspec.h>
#include<asm/io_apic.h>
@@ -109,3 +110,75 @@ error:
return ret;
}
#endif
+
+struct device_owner {
Again, a bit generic (the name should at least convey we're talking
about owner domains).
+ domid_t domain;
+ struct pci_dev *dev;
+ struct list_head list;
+};
+
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dev_domain_list_spinlock);
+static struct list_head dev_domain_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(dev_domain_list);
+
+struct device_owner *find_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
+{
+
+ struct device_owner *owner;
Stray blank line.
+
+ list_for_each_entry(owner,&dev_domain_list, list) {
+ if (owner->dev == dev)
+ return owner;
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+int find_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev)
+{
+
+ struct device_owner *owner = NULL;
Again.
+
+ owner = find_device(dev);
+ if (!owner)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ return owner->domain;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_device_owner);
+
+int register_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev, domid_t domain)
+{
+ struct device_owner *owner;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ if (find_device(dev))
Should this be under the lock?
+ return -EEXIST;
+
+ owner = kzalloc(sizeof(struct device_owner), GFP_KERNEL);
Check for NULL.
+ owner->domain = domain;
+ owner->dev = dev;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_domain_list_spinlock, flags);
+ list_add_tail(&owner->list,&dev_domain_list);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_domain_list_spinlock, flags);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_device_owner);
+
+int unregister_device_owner(struct pci_dev *dev)
+{
+ struct device_owner *owner = NULL;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ owner = find_device(dev);
Shouldn't this be under the lock too?
+ if (!owner)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_domain_list_spinlock, flags);
+ list_del(&owner->list);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_domain_list_spinlock, flags);
+
+ kfree(owner);
+ return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_device_owner);
Thanks,
J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
| 
Home