[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()
- To: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
- From: Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 12:39:48 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=2; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=fail (sender ip is 4.158.2.129) smtp.rcpttodomain=amd.com smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=arm.com; arc=pass (0 oda=1 ltdi=1 spf=[1,1,smtp.mailfrom=arm.com] dkim=[1,1,header.d=arm.com] dmarc=[1,1,header.from=arm.com])
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=2; 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=IrmUDUAsVhFxUMqGL5k77UKZXX+SoRVVirby99Rb2k4=; b=nT4PbSRXNwuN5EAUNmLp23FglpYQUNCG8SjWxsZWjk9PPl9w+clgAy692jljK3eXiQasvcVj2IE9YyX4luVDXP2faNud4uKNj5FSCqKcNapB+Vjs1BzDYpf0InvQoGggfpwNANPqBH4abHJq3Mbo6j3dw+dgZozZpTRHgCGqX1TkNLu+lEY5gopIR9bBrVSYQShYPyaSTNZ3VVq/WwwGFMtTGwLXVRXi7RXL+k1Uv7c4+EQeEVC9MD/x5MTpxQ4NCpCW8d6GiUhpk329zekwRVB7Hlvq6eXBd4cI3jMeDt9T83LTcaE/pDw5Fh1zVi8Y1JJNwTrJlEn8xn/yKPuAsw==
- 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=IrmUDUAsVhFxUMqGL5k77UKZXX+SoRVVirby99Rb2k4=; b=TpmJK0UidoCO4qM0+z5R6hE8OtYTr2ZbE6gWKOJ7mcku7us0inWYU4xKQ0kirqtwe9pnMGE9vELSXDqzGdUdAwO+RJqrZ2zGj7DyE0YRYFzaBM0dYwFoVCOS2TywD/JRDv5Gj4vIjhS6nuH4WPC/9IXaPhI9QmHLrbgKJbCRpSp7kBbpVJdFcmmII2IFiJgRdMH0nYCbGkvd55JB1xNja+dHgk+KHiZ14nicXipEC/ugPOFuGi5IUzaUtKrDanVP5YOpkQ2k3x+4r6Jd4Q0yuKyw7N4bg28P0dDNx8YoE1qYulTusty/svwtGfaS4Vk1xTS6aj1bZmnH62vMm7exzQ==
- Arc-seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=pass; b=uzFyFCyKS31KwPQ8GpinjEifNPPFQR+MFUcte7iVvkKG3bKGECKEFgITHcjsZsPwWR1UbN2z/jM8C9fnU7jTd3nXxAeZ0byWUU+R8kXiyzmh8YUsqrgYDpzECIzvNgMmTe8jiaEaCid7aja7dQOILCtZ6jqEw5PqTSLGmOscJDfMu+6729KDSHbKBZLfnu8gPyI7BJacmf4ZB02LrIeTjtZSzRCxb2itX3tzhmMsVXZ/escGRG0EpK/LIOltTUsek8ICRC56ynIP4+/Z3PFCLEhXpzKX7kzMi2ZDcg8agpYpszywmbcQdFKR1TIZbRUIUrpw9V3gdlsiPMz2gnEY/Q==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=iR6qpIHP1Y6FYyJL01Uh/iEepFhA5PG0z66aXIknz2/PtZBskoo2wYNzdTppw+d/3BtvGHVZZOqhW5wgZQZgW9mxipC6+kSByNn1lo6Tew5Rg8wHLEU1vur3IVymszOc1PsK2QRJBg42c6E3+FMeR8XjAnzgctf/aEA2kNlPAioKRy74MY4orS/ZMpZfUp68YVYK4DTB1vs7hufHOm4kwvn6gldzd/kbPfP8GJx1xZOj8h/GuktOVUnv8BzH+t9tCgiYwJ7elm7hueGnIiPu3nPy+pL8mwBjHzl/8wKdkyhkC4sV9QwVXLO9ujtJoNUbEDuYOv+OyUMZFVftneKYdQ==
- Authentication-results-original: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 12:41:16 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Nodisclaimer: true
- Thread-index: AQHbouXYbSonA6PaSkKWeRFZ+sT80rOOwF8A
- Thread-topic: [PATCH] xen/arm: Drop process_shm_chosen()
Hi Michal,
> On 1 Apr 2025, at 10:09, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There's no benefit in having process_shm_chosen() next to process_shm().
> The former is just a helper to pass "/chosen" node to the latter for
> hwdom case. Drop process_shm_chosen() and instead use process_shm()
> passing NULL as node parameter, which will result in searching for and
> using /chosen to find shm node (the DT full path search is done in
> process_shm() to avoid expensive lookup if !CONFIG_STATIC_SHM). This
> will simplify future handling of hw/control domain separation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
> ---
Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
I’ve also tested both configuration CONFIG_STATIC_SHM and !CONFIG_STATIC_SHM,
with Dom0 and with only DomU (Dom0less started):
Tested-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
Cheers,
Luca
|
