Re: [RFC 7/7] x86/dpci: move hvm_dpci_isairq_eoi() to generic HVM code

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.12.2022 12:13, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/22 12:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.12.2022 07:34, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
>>> The function hvm_dpci_isairq_eoi() has no dependencies on VT-d driver code
>>> and can be moved from xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/x86/hvm.c to
>>> xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/hvm.c.
>>>
>>> Remove the now empty xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/x86/hvm.c.
>>>
>>> Since the funcion is hvm specific, move its declaration from xen/iommu.h
>>> to asm/hvm/io.h.
>>
>> While everything else looks good here, I question this part: The function
>> is both HVM- and IOMMU-specific. However, by moving the definition ...
>>
>>> No functional change intended.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I was not sure how to handle the copyright. I assume that I have to
>>> retain the copyright of Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>, right?
>>>
>>>   xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/io.h        |  1 +
>>>   xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/x86/Makefile |  1 -
>>>   xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/x86/hvm.c    | 64 ------------------------
>>>   xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/hvm.c        | 42 ++++++++++++++++
>>
>> ... here, you don't need a declaration anymore anyway - the function can
>> simply become static then, as its only caller lives in this very file.
> 
> I will change it to static.
> 
> Regarding the copyright, shall I add the copyright of Weidong Han 
> <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>, that was in the deleted file?

Strictly speaking you probably ought to, yes.

Jan