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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.04.14 at 18:45, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

In which case the function name should reflect this.

Jan


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