Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 12/21] xen/passthrough: iommu: Split generic IOMMU code

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/22/2014 05:33 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.04.14 at 16:58, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +void __hwdom_init arch_iommu_check_hwdom_reqs(struct domain *d)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if ( !iommu_enabled )
>>>> +        panic("Presently, iommu must be enabled for pvh dom0\n");
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Message text (containing PVH) and function name (not containing
>>> PVH) don't fit together, nor does the conditional really establish a
>>> connection.
>>
>> Do you prefer a comment, or an explicit check to is_pvh_domain(d)?
> 
> That depends on where it would go: If the caller checks for PVH, then
> the function name should change. If the caller doesn't, then I don't
> see how you'd avoid getting here for non-PVH.

The caller will go there when the DOM0 is auto-translated (i.e PVH as
dom0 can't be an HVM).

I can remove PVH from the log, but for the user it's not accurate.

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel