Re: [RFC 09/10] x86/ioreq: guard VIO_realmode_completion with INTEL_VMX

[Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/14/23 18:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.02.2023 15:57, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> > VIO_realmode_completion is specific to vmx realmode, so guard the completion
> > handling code with INTEL_VMX.
> While it means slightly bigger a code change, personally I'd prefer if
> VIO_realmode_completion simply didn't exist as enumerator when !VMX.
> Besides ...
>
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ bool arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion(enum vio_completion 
> > completion)
> >   {
> >       switch ( completion )
> >       {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_VMX
> >       case VIO_realmode_completion:
> >       {
> >           struct hvm_emulate_ctxt ctxt;
> > @@ -54,6 +55,7 @@ bool arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion(enum vio_completion 
> > completion)
> >   
> >           break;
> >       }
> > +#endif
> ... this use there's exactly one further one which would need #ifdef-ing.
> I think that's tolerable.
Sure. I will fix it.

> Thinking further (not necessarily for you to carry out) the x86 version
> is identical to Arm's when !VMX, so it would look better to me if the
> entire x86 function became conditional, the Arm one was dropped, and
> common/ioreq.c provided a fallback for the case where no arch one exists.
It may look awkward to have arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion() in VMX guards 
in common ioreq code because the connection is not obvious immediately.
> Jan
--
Xenia