Re: [PATCH V5 14/22] arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julien


On 28.01.21 15:39, Oleksandr wrote:
> On 28.01.21 13:33, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> Hi Julien
>
> > On 28.01.21 11:40, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> > Hi Julien
> >
> > > Hi Oleksandr,
> > >
> > > On 27/01/2021 19:20, Oleksandr wrote:
> > >  >  >>> So I think we may be able to drop the include from 
> > > asm/hvm/domain.h
> > > > (this would avoid to include it everywhere...).
> > > >
> > > > I have tried that, but other CUs use definitions from 
> > > > public/hvm/dm_op.h, for example:
> > > > p2m-pt.c: In function 'p2m_type_to_flags':
> > > > p2m-pt.c:87:33: error: 'XEN_DMOP_IOREQ_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE' undeclared 
> > > > (first use in this function)
> > > >           if ( p2m->ioreq.flags & XEN_DMOP_IOREQ_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE )
> > > >                                   ^
> > > > So, I would prefer to leave it as is, please let me know if you 
> > > > think otherwise.
> > > AFAICT, there is only 2 places (p2m-pt.c and p2m-ept.c) that 
> > > requires <public/hvm/dm_op.h> but doesn't directly include it. 
> > > Folding the diff below in patch #4 should do the job:
> > ok, will do
>
> Just to clarify, you mentioned about patch #4, but shouldn't we make 
> these changes in patch #9 which actually tries to sort dm related stuff?
or a least in patch #8 which moves the stuff from asm-x86/hvm/domain.h 
to xen/ioreq.h (including the user of XEN_DMOP_IO_RANGE_PCI),
what do you think?


As for proposed changes, can confirm they work.


> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > > index 975ab403f235..23d411f01d2f 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > >
> > >  #include <xen/domain_page.h>
> > >  #include <xen/sched.h>
> > > +#include <public/hvm/dm_op.h>
> > >  #include <asm/altp2m.h>
> > >  #include <asm/current.h>
> > >  #include <asm/paging.h>
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> > > index c43d5d0413a1..f2afcf49a368 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> > >  #include <xen/vm_event.h>
> > >  #include <xen/event.h>
> > >  #include <xen/trace.h>
> > > +#include <public/hvm/dm_op.h>
> > >  #include <public/vm_event.h>
> > >  #include <asm/altp2m.h>
> > >  #include <asm/domain.h>
> > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h 
> > > b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
> > > index 3b36c2f41fa1..f26c1a2e2d5f 100644
> > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
> > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
> > > @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@
> > >  #include <asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h>
> > >  #include <asm/hvm/svm/vmcb.h>
> > >
> > > -#include <public/hvm/dm_op.h>
> > > -
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SHARING
> > >  struct mem_sharing_domain
> > >  {
> > >
> > > You would then need to move the include of <public/hvm/dm_op.h> in 
> > > <xen/dm.h> from this patch to patch #9.
> > yes, sure
--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko