[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [V8 PATCH 7/8] pvh dom0: add check for pvh in vioapic_range
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:09:15 +0100 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 01.04.14 at 16:40, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/24/2014 09:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 22.03.14 at 02:39, <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >>> @@ -238,8 +238,13 @@ static int vioapic_write( > >>> > >>> static int vioapic_range(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr) > >>> { > >>> - struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain); > >>> + struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic; > >>> + > >>> + /* pvh uses event channel callback */ > >>> + if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) ) > >>> + return 0; > >>> > >>> + vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain); > >> > >> I can see why the extra check is needed, but I can't see why you > >> convert the initializer to an assignment: Afaict domain_vioapic() > >> is safe even if d->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic == NULL. > > > > Or better yet, just make it something like: > > > > return vioapic && ((addr >= [...original range check])) > > > > That way we don't have to have a PVH-specific hook at all. If a > > domain doesn't have a vioapic for any reason, return 0. > > No, vioapic isn't going to be NULL for PVH: > > #define domain_vioapic(d) > (&(d)->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic->hvm_hw_vioapic) No, viopaic is NULL for PVH, hence the patch. So, can prob just check for the ptr like George suggests and remove the pvh check. thanks mukesh _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |