Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 6/9] ioreq-server: add support for multiple servers

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.05.14 at 14:25, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> >>> On 07.05.14 at 14:06, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> >> >>> On 01.05.14 at 14:08, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > +static int hvm_access_cfc(
>> >> > +    int dir, uint32_t port, uint32_t bytes, uint32_t *val)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +    struct vcpu *curr = current;
>> >> > +    struct hvm_domain *hd = &curr->domain->arch.hvm_domain;
>> >> > +    int rc;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +    BUG_ON(port < 0xcfc);
>> >> > +    port -= 0xcfc;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +    spin_lock(&hd->pci_lock);
>> >> > +
>> >> > +    if ( hd->pci_cf8 & (1 << 31) ) {
>> >> > +        /* Fall through to an emulator */
>> >> > +        rc = X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
>> >> > +    } else {
>> >> > +        /* Config access disabled */
>> >>
>> >> Why does this not also get passed through to an emulator?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was trying to be consistent with QEMU here. It squashes any data
>> accesses
>> > if cf8 has the top bit set.
>> 
>> But afaict with that dropped the entire function can go away.
>> 
> 
> Yes, it can. Do you not think it would be a good idea to be consistent with 
> QEMU though?

By removing the function you're going to be consistent with qemu,
because you're going to have qemu supply the data.

Jan


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