[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v6 2/3] ioreq: do not build arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion() for non-VMX configurations
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Sergiy Kibrik <sergiy_kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:04:54 +0300
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=epam.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=epam.com; dkim=pass header.d=epam.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=MhXL0oaIJGettiklgm2AZOji3swPxQIyIWGgItFMpFE=; b=DpI5PxJHisrdeh9f0/S9cPCyPDvd98Tpj/iU+Nph1o67/6Z+vmDtkoBwgwpNiEVVznXyxpVDrVY/dSZFzKis3DphIPBQEbemOu6M9/g1G6gtYRqp4HpD4jI8w/saPPfH3O9qtz3TB456RZ4ii//fwA/8netNIfW48/LD5od5ahkidN+JXqjhaWL9/ohndJ9+IosqM4vYWmMkES0ERHZgwdQsifx/DLQvj8Ge0DQbOWW/mWoVCa2EBFjcXSyqD77+iyZgM98VLidgkPrvuaCok8p30idiHeaPrp2q5Ho0fXoHRnUkl1PCCJoNDxkQi9ZrkuGqaR35lUaeVuridYrCgg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=r+IXf6F9WpfejS1C3u5w2KMlCXs5J36ADS1Gt9/DA6Eo4bCHaMAc93pIMNd/YkfxM/KJlKzUUWlv3pe1PmI5RFSBIO4sgdCDcnP/GZ8tb08E7AH8vKIwT14g4X4kg/7oENGGX+ZRboqHq3rH7Lg8rZeIdaxY/eNyoee5H6eklynwSNpuLIleOn9EvY7YNHireBan99ia7jVuI5NxFnD+eRswcSu4Jyd+QfAMRO7dOg8i316lFIuB/OKA1JcsHlAfsdv/Mz2PbsiM5r5DVGcK3zdTlhkhEOixq43DKvjjF9IaQ4q1/C39HZ3J1wKZGdAZMFbxbnxc45LKfsit6ba4dA==
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xenia Ragiadakou <xenia.ragiadakou@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:05:26 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
13.08.24 10:31, Jan Beulich:
--- a/xen/include/xen/ioreq.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/ioreq.h
@@ -111,7 +111,17 @@ void ioreq_domain_init(struct domain *d);
int ioreq_server_dm_op(struct xen_dm_op *op, struct domain *d, bool
*const_op);
bool arch_ioreq_complete_mmio(void);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_VCPU_ARCH_IOREQ_COMPLETION
bool arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion(enum vio_completion completion);
+#else
+static inline bool arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion(enum vio_completion completion)
+{
+ ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
+ return true;
+}
My prior comment here remains: Despite pre-existing behavior being to return
"true" here, I question that to be in line with coding-best-practices.pandoc.
Imo the generalization of the stub is a good opportunity to adjust that. But
yes, it could also be done in a separate change. If you really don't want to
do so right here, then
Acked-by: Jan Beulich<jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
with the two cosmetic adjustments (which likely could also be done while
committing).
I'm inclined to do a separate patch, that changes return value of
arch_vcpu_ioreq_completion() depending on completion being handled on
not. Such change has little to do with this patch series, and also
probably should have its own separate discussion.
-Sergiy
|
