Re: [XEN][PATCH v2 1/2] xen/evtchn: enable build optimization for evtchn_move_pirqs()/send_guest_pirq()

[Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>]

On 31.07.25 10:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.07.2025 15:46, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > On 22.07.25 11:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 18.07.2025 12:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > > > From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > On platforms without PIRQ support evtchn_move_pirqs()/send_guest_pirq()
> > > > functions are unreachable (Misra rule 2.1).
> > > >
> > > > Move these function under CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ ifdefs to fix Misra rule 2.1
> > > > violation and resolve call of evtchn_move_pirqs() from common /sched/core.c
> > > > vcpu_move_irqs() code by moving evtchn_move_pirqs() into x86
> > > > arch_move_irqs() callback (which is converted to define).
> > > The patch title isn't quite appropriate anymore with this description, I
> > > think.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > > preferably with ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -1707,6 +1709,7 @@ void evtchn_destroy_final(struct domain *d)
> > > >    }
> > > >    
> > > >    
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ
> > > >    void evtchn_move_pirqs(struct vcpu *v)
> > > >    {
> > > >        struct domain *d = v->domain;
> > > ... one of the two blank lines also dropped here, just like you do ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -1722,7 +1725,7 @@ void evtchn_move_pirqs(struct vcpu *v)
> > > >        }
> > > >        read_unlock(&d->event_lock);
> > > >    }
> > > > -
> > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ */
> > > ... here. Happy to adjust while committing,
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > but please consider suggesting a replacement patch title.
> > Honestly, I, by myself, not sure about proper patch title :(
> > My options would be:
> >
> >    "xen/evtchn: evtchn_move_pirqs()/send_guest_pirq() fix MISRA Rule 2.1 
> > violation"
> >
> >    "xen/evtchn: opt out of common pIRQ code for arches without pIRQ support"
> >
> >    "xen/evtchn: fully restrict concept of pIRQ for arches with pIRQ support 
> > only"
> I would probably pick one of the latter two, but as said - an ack is still
> missing here. FTAOD: It is on you to chase it.
Could you merge first patch and I'll send cumulative arch clean-up patches?

--
Best regards,
-grygorii