Re: [XEN PATCH v2 14/15] iommu/vt-d: guard vmx_pi_hooks_* calls with cpu_has_vmx

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 16 May 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.05.2024 02:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 May 2024, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
> >> VMX posted interrupts support can now be excluded from x86 build along with
> >> VMX code itself, but still we may want to keep the possibility to use
> >> VT-d IOMMU driver in non-HVM setups.
> >> So we guard vmx_pi_hooks_{assign/deassign} with some checks for such a 
> >> case.
> >>
> >> No functional change intended here.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <Sergiy_Kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > I know that Andrew was keep on having a separate Kconfig option for
> > VT-D, separate from VMX. But still, couldn't we make the VT-D Kconfig
> > option depending on CONFIG_VMX?
> > 
> > To me, VT-D should require VMX, without VMX it should not be possible to
> > enable VT-D.
> > 
> > This comment goes in the same direction of my previous comment regarding
> > the vpmu: we are trying to make things more configurable and flexible
> > and that's good, but we don't necessary need to make all possible
> > combination work. VT-D without VMX is another one of those combination
> > that I would only enable after a customer asks.
> 
> Well. Imo again the configuration should be permitted.

FYI Andrew said the same thing as you on Matrix, so I withdraw my
suggestion.