Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v13 1/2] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 24.02.16 at 13:09, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another reason for such a comment is that it actually raises awareness
> that the hook isn't properly structured: if you get such a compile
> error, then it's either not defined in the right place, or it's not
> using the right calling convention.

Well, why I generally agree with you here, I'm afraid there are
many pre-existing instances in our headers. Cleaning that up is
likely going to be a major work item.

> It also makes me realize that this code will no longer build on ARM,
> since arch_do_block() is only defined in asm-x86 (and not asm-arm).

The patch has

--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
@@ -310,6 +310,8 @@ static inline void free_vcpu_guest_context(struct 
vcpu_guest_context *vgc)
     xfree(vgc);
 }
 
+static inline void arch_vcpu_block(struct vcpu *v) {}
+
 #endif /* __ASM_DOMAIN_H__ */
 
 /*

(and for the avoidance of doubt there's no arch_do_block() afaics).

> It seems like to do the callback properly, we should do something like
> the attached.  Jan, what do you think?

Well, as per above that would address the particular issue here
without addressing the many other existing ones, and it would
cause out of line functions _plus_ another indirect call when the
idea is to have such hooks inlined as far as possible.

But you indeed point out one important problem - the hook as it
is right now lacks a has_hvm_container_vcpu(), and hence would
break for PV guests.

Jan


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