Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 12/21] xen/passthrough: iommu: Split generic IOMMU code

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/22/2014 05:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.04.14 at 18:45, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 04/22/2014 05:33 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 22.04.14 at 16:58, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> +void __hwdom_init arch_iommu_check_hwdom_reqs(struct domain *d)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    if ( !iommu_enabled )
>>>>>> +        panic("Presently, iommu must be enabled for pvh dom0\n");
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> Message text (containing PVH) and function name (not containing
>>>>> PVH) don't fit together, nor does the conditional really establish a
>>>>> connection.
>>>>
>>>> Do you prefer a comment, or an explicit check to is_pvh_domain(d)?
>>>
>>> That depends on where it would go: If the caller checks for PVH, then
>>> the function name should change. If the caller doesn't, then I don't
>>> see how you'd avoid getting here for non-PVH.
>>
>> The caller will go there when the DOM0 is auto-translated (i.e PVH as
>> dom0 can't be an HVM).
>>
>> I can remove PVH from the log, but for the user it's not accurate.
> 
> In which case the function name should reflect this.

What about arch_iommu_check_autotranslate_hwdom_reqs?

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel