Since commit 4bb571d857d9 ("pci/pcie: don't assume cap id 0 is
reserved") removes the internal use of extended capability ID 0, the
comment here becomes invalid. However, peeling back the onion, the
code is still correct and we still can't seed the capability chain
with ID 0, unless we want to muck with using the version number to
force the header to be non-zero, which is much uglier to deal with.
The comment also now covers some of the subtleties of using cap ID 0,
such as transparently indicating absence of capabilities if none are
added. This doesn't detract from the correctness of the referenced
commit as vfio in the kernel also uses capability ID zero to mask
capabilties. In fact, we should skip zero capabilities precisely
because the kernel might also expose such a capability at the head
position and re-introduce the problem.
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
Tested-by: Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
d0d1cd70d1