Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen/arm: add support for vm_assist hypercall

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 20.05.16 at 16:42, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/05/16 16:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.05.16 at 15:22, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>>> @@ -1408,7 +1408,6 @@ long do_vcpu_op(int cmd, unsigned int vcpuid, 
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>>>      return rc;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -#ifdef VM_ASSIST_VALID
>>>  long vm_assist(struct domain *p, unsigned int cmd, unsigned int type,
>>>                 unsigned long valid)
>>>  {
>>> @@ -1427,7 +1426,6 @@ long vm_assist(struct domain *p, unsigned int cmd, 
>>> unsigned int type,
>>>  
>>>      return -ENOSYS;
>>>  }
>>> -#endif
>>>  
>>>  struct pirq *pirq_get_info(struct domain *d, int pirq)
>>>  {
>>> --- a/xen/common/kernel.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/kernel.c
>>> @@ -441,12 +441,10 @@ DO(nmi_op)(unsigned int cmd, 
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>>>      return rc;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -#ifdef VM_ASSIST_VALID
>>>  DO(vm_assist)(unsigned int cmd, unsigned int type)
>>>  {
>>>      return vm_assist(current->domain, cmd, type, VM_ASSIST_VALID);
>>>  }
>>> -#endif
>> 
>> Removing these #ifdef-s is neither necessary for this patch (at least
>> afaict) nor desirable (after all they had got added so that an arch
>> doesn't get this code compiled for no reason).
> 
> Removing is not necessary, right.
> 
> OTOH there is no arch left needing those #ifdef-s to be in place. Or do
> you think we should guard each single functionality in xen/common by
> such means? I don't think so. In this case keeping the #ifdef-s would be
> for historical reasons only.

No, I don't want to go overboard with this. But we added these
not so long ago, so I see no reason why they should now be
removed again, just to maybe have them added in a couple of
years again.

Jan


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