[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC for-4.5 08/12] xen/passthrough: iommu: Split generic IOMMU code
Hello Jan,
Thanks for the review.
On 10/02/14 08:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.14 at 18:43, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The generic IOMMU framework code (xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c) contains
functions specific to x86 and PCI.
Split the framework in 3 distincts files:
- iommu.c: contains generic functions shared between x86 and ARM
(when it will be supported)
- iommu_pci.c: contains specific functions for PCI passthrough
- iommu_x86.c: contains specific functions for x86
iommu_pci.c will be only compiled when PCI is supported by the architecture
(eg. HAS_PCI is defined).
This patch is mostly code movement in new files.
Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
---
xen/drivers/passthrough/Makefile | 6 +-
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 473 +----------------------------------
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu_pci.c | 468 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There's xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c already - any reason not to
move the code there?
I didn't specific about moving the code directly in passthrough/pci.c. I
will do on the next version.
xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu_x86.c | 65 +++++
Same here for xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/.
@@ -696,125 +344,6 @@ void iommu_crash_shutdown(void)
iommu_enabled = iommu_intremap = 0;
}
-int iommu_do_domctl(
- struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct domain *d,
- XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl)
The function itself should probably not be moved out. Either the
PCI-specific pieces of it should be made conditional, or a
descendant function be created. Since (afaict) you'll need all of
the domctl-s (with different arguments) too for pass-through on
ARM - what's your plan for them?
PCI passthrough will be supported on ARM in the future. But we will also
have to support passthrough (via the device tree). I think, we will add
new DOMCTL for that. Didn't really think about that know.
I will add a descendant function to handle PCI DOMCTL.
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1784,31 +1784,31 @@ static int intel_iommu_unmap_page(struct domain *d,
unsigned long gfn)
void iommu_pte_flush(struct domain *d, u64 gfn, u64 *pte,
int order, int present)
-{
- struct acpi_drhd_unit *drhd;
- struct iommu *iommu = NULL;
- struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
- int flush_dev_iotlb;
- int iommu_domid;
+ {
+ struct acpi_drhd_unit *drhd;
+ struct iommu *iommu = NULL;
+ struct hvm_iommu *hd = domain_hvm_iommu(d);
+ int flush_dev_iotlb;
+ int iommu_domid;
- iommu_flush_cache_entry(pte, sizeof(struct dma_pte));
+ iommu_flush_cache_entry(pte, sizeof(struct dma_pte));
- for_each_drhd_unit ( drhd )
- {
- iommu = drhd->iommu;
- if ( !test_bit(iommu->index, &hd->iommu_bitmap) )
- continue;
+ for_each_drhd_unit ( drhd )
+ {
+ iommu = drhd->iommu;
+ if ( !test_bit(iommu->index, &hd->iommu_bitmap) )
+ continue;
- flush_dev_iotlb = find_ats_dev_drhd(iommu) ? 1 : 0;
- iommu_domid= domain_iommu_domid(d, iommu);
- if ( iommu_domid == -1 )
- continue;
- if ( iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, iommu_domid,
- (paddr_t)gfn << PAGE_SHIFT_4K,
- order, !present, flush_dev_iotlb) )
- iommu_flush_write_buffer(iommu);
+ flush_dev_iotlb = find_ats_dev_drhd(iommu) ? 1 : 0;
+ iommu_domid= domain_iommu_domid(d, iommu);
+ if ( iommu_domid == -1 )
+ continue;
+ if ( iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, iommu_domid,
+ (paddr_t)gfn << PAGE_SHIFT_4K,
+ order, !present, flush_dev_iotlb) )
+ iommu_flush_write_buffer(iommu);
+ }
}
-}
What are these changes to indentation about? Are you
deliberately breaking common rules here, or is this some sort of
unintentional leftover?
It's an error when I have created this patch. I will remove it.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
