[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v12 4/7] x86/domctl: Add hypercall to set the access of x86 gsi
- To: "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:27:38 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <gwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Hildebrand, Stewart" <Stewart.Hildebrand@xxxxxxx>, "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 06:27:45 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 02.08.2024 05:10, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> On 2024/8/1 19:06, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 07:41:21PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
>>> @@ -464,6 +464,13 @@ struct xen_domctl_irq_permission {
>>> uint8_t pad[3];
>>> };
>>>
>>> +/* XEN_DOMCTL_gsi_permission */
>>> +struct xen_domctl_gsi_permission {
>>> + uint32_t gsi;
>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_GSI_PERMISSION_MASK 1
>>
>> IMO this would be better named GRANT or similar, maybe something like:
>>
>> /* Low bit used to signal grant/revoke action. */
>> #define XEN_DOMCTL_GSI_REVOKE 0
>> #define XEN_DOMCTL_GSI_GRANT 1
>>
>>> + uint8_t access_flag; /* flag to specify enable/disable of x86 gsi
>>> access */
>>> + uint8_t pad[3];
>>
>> We might as well declare the flags field as uint32_t and avoid the
>> padding field.
> So, should this struct be like below? Then I just need to check whether
> everything except the lowest bit is 0.
> struct xen_domctl_gsi_permission {
> uint32_t gsi;
> /* Lowest bit used to signal grant/revoke action. */
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_GSI_REVOKE 0
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_GSI_GRANT 1
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_GSI_PERMISSION_MASK 1
> uint32_t access_flag; /* flag to specify enable/disable of x86 gsi
> access */
> };
Yet then why "access_flags"? You can't foresee what meaning the other bits may
gain. That meaning may (and likely will) not be access related at all.
Jan
|
