From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF60A034F; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:08:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA64F1BF98; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:08:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA71A1BF7D for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:08:20 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: 4z+MkHElzyJHphu4Lk3hUPITPEVleJ7/B5X5Oxv71YcFfm3ZgCQBiP0V0O2aI2HApJeNtpXPVp Ran3+B/Kfq8g== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 May 2020 08:08:17 -0700 IronPort-SDR: mStHnJhV1Ly/jN6spMKZziZJSCXJhWeNKhhYFQV1c8YOouadO/+4dMv3RvkwD/LBWtJHlFfxsd fOFS2ISmZA9g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,384,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="340927962" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.97.59]) ([10.209.97.59]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2020 08:08:02 -0700 To: Darek Stojaczyk , dev@dpdk.org References: <20200512133057.106374-1-dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 16:08:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200512133057.106374-1-dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 12-May-20 2:30 PM, Darek Stojaczyk wrote: > The parsing code was bailing on domains greater than UINT16_MAX, > but domain numbers like that are still valid and present on some systems. > One example is Intel VMD (Volume Management Device), which acts somewhat > as a software-managed PCI switch and its upstream linux driver assigns > all downstream devices a PCI domain of 0x10000. > > Parsing a BDF like 10000:01:00.0 was failing before. To fix it, increase > the upper limit of domain number to UINT32_MAX. This matches the size of > struct rte_pci_addr->domain (uint32). > > Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk > --- Cc: stable? -- Thanks, Anatoly