Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 10/16] x86/mm: put nested p2m code under CONFIG_HVM

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 04.09.18 at 18:15, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void p2m_teardown_hostp2m(struct domain *d)
>      }
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
>  static void p2m_teardown_nestedp2m(struct domain *d)
>  {
>      unsigned int i;
> @@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ static int p2m_init_nestedp2m(struct domain *d)
>  
>      return 0;
>  }
> +#endif

With the goal of limited code churn I think these would better be put
around the entire body of the function. That way the ones below
enclosing the function calls can go away.

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> @@ -333,9 +333,11 @@ struct arch_domain
>          void (*tail)(struct vcpu *);
>      } *ctxt_switch;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
>      /* nestedhvm: translate l2 guest physical to host physical */
>      struct p2m_domain *nested_p2m[MAX_NESTEDP2M];
>      mm_lock_t nested_p2m_lock;
> +#endif

Not something to be done here, just a general remark / question (perhaps
also more to George than you): Why do we have part of things here ...

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
> @@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>  
>      p2m_class_t       p2m_class; /* host/nested/alternate */
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
>      /* Nested p2ms only: nested p2m base value that this p2m shadows.
>       * This can be cleared to P2M_BASE_EADDR under the per-p2m lock but
>       * needs both the per-p2m lock and the per-domain nestedp2m lock
> @@ -216,6 +217,7 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>       * The host p2m hasolds the head of the list and the np2ms are 
>       * threaded on in LRU order. */
>      struct list_head   np2m_list;
> +#endif

... and another part here?

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel