Re: [PATCH v8 13/20] xen/riscv: introduce (de)initialization helpers for vINTC

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/3/26 11:20 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.08.2026 17:19, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > Add common helpers domain_vintc_init() and domain_vintc_deinit() to
> > allocate and deallocate a virtual interrupt controller (vINTC)
> > structure and initialize basic virtual interrupt controller registers.
> >
> > domain_vintc_deinit() isn't called at the moment as arch_domain_destroy()
> > is implemented as stub at the moment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v8:
> >   - Add call of domain_vintc_deinit() to arch_domain_destroy().
> Why only there? With ...
>
> > @@ -308,6 +310,9 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d,
> >       if ( (rc = p2m_init(d, config)) != 0)
> >           goto fail;
> >   
> > +    if ( (rc = domain_vintc_init(d)) )
> > +        goto fail;
> > +
> >       return rc;
> ... anything added between the newly added code and the return, ...
>
> >    fail:
> ... you will also need to call it here. Since it is (supposed to remain)
> idempotent, I think you'd better add that call right away (as long as
> domain_create() calls arch_domain_destroy() only when
> arch_domain_create() succeeded).
arch_domain_destroy() (where domain_vintc_deinit() is called) is invoked 
from arch_domain_create() if arch_domain_create() fails.
So, the mentioned case is already covered. Am I missing something?

> Then:
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks.

~ Oleksii