[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 13/19] xen/iommu: arm: Wire iommu DOMCTL for ARM
>>> On 16.06.14 at 18:18, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl( > break; > > default: > - ret = iommu_do_domctl(domctl, d, u_domctl); > + ret = -ENOSYS; > break; > } > > diff --git a/xen/common/domctl.c b/xen/common/domctl.c > index 5d3ac87..85866b7 100644 > --- a/xen/common/domctl.c > +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c > @@ -1028,6 +1028,10 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) > u_domctl) > > default: > ret = arch_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); > +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH > + if ( ret == -ENOSYS ) > + ret = iommu_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); > +#endif > break; > } > To be honest I'm not convinced of this approach. I'd prefer ARM's arch_do_domctl() to invoke iommu_do_domctl() just like x86's does. In particular I'm neither in favor of checking for specific error codes before chaining, nor do I think that - despite there being a number of such cases in the tree - ENOSYS is the right error value for not implemented sub-hypercalls (to me only top level hypercalls may produce this). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |