[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH V3 09/23] xen/dm: Make x86's DM feature common
Hi Jan. On 07.01.21 18:49, Oleksandr wrote: On 07.01.21 17:01, Jan Beulich wrote: Hi Jan, allOn 07.01.2021 15:38, Oleksandr wrote:Well, on v2 you replied you didn't consider the alternative. I would have expected that you would at least go through this consideration process, and see whether there are better reasons to stick with the apparently backwards arrangement than to change to the more conventional one. If there are such reasons, I would expect them to be called out in reply and perhaps also in the commit message; the latter because down the road more people may wonder why the more narrow / special set of cases gets handled at a higher layer than the wider set of remaining ones, and they would then be able to find an explanation without having to resort to searching through list archives.Ah, will investigate. Sorry for not paying enough attention to it. Yes, IOREQ (I mean "common") ops are 7 out of 18 right now. The subsequent patch is adding one more DM op - XEN_DMOP_set_irq_level. There are several PCI related ops which might want to be common in the future (but I am not sure).I think, I can say that I have considered the alternative (doing it the other way around), of course if I got your suggestion for V2 correctly. Agree, the alternative is more natural, also compat_dm_op() was left in x86 code. For me the downside is in code duplication. With the alternative both arches have to duplicate do_dm_op() and "common" part of dm_op() (only "switch ( op.op )" is unique).Yes, this duplication is the main downside.Now the question is which approach to take ("current" or "alternative") for me to prepare for V4. Personally, I would be OK with the both (with a little preference for "alternative").Same here. I don't think I've seen anyone else voice an opinion.Well, let's wait a bit for other opinions... @Julien, @Paul what do you think on that?Also, If we decide to go with the alternative, should the common files still be named dm.*?I think this should live in ioreq.c, just like e.g. iommu_do_pci_domctl() lives in passthrough/pci.c. This would then allow quite a few things to become static in that file, I believe.I got it. It seems yes, at least the following could became static: ioreq_server_create ioreq_server_get_info ioreq_server_map_io_range ioreq_server_unmap_io_range ioreq_server_set_state ioreq_server_destroy Well, I have already pushed V4 with this "alternative" approach, let's discuss there [1]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/1610488352-18494-10-git-send-email-olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mb08f75657f43df869596c5c9c30e2395a9e35c7a -- Regards, Oleksandr Tyshchenko
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |