Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 04/13] pvh/acpi: Install handlers for ACPI-related PVH IO accesses

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/20/2016 09:10 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.12.16 at 15:03, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2016 06:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.12.16 at 00:18, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
>>>> @@ -527,7 +527,37 @@ DECLARE_HVM_SAVE_TYPE(HPET, 12, struct hvm_hw_hpet);
>>>>  /*
>>>>   * PM timer
>>>>   */
>>>> +#if __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__ >= 0x00040800
>>>> +struct hvm_hw_pmtimer {
>>>> +    uint32_t tmr_val;   /* PM_TMR_BLK.TMR_VAL: 32bit free-running counter 
>>>> */
>>>> +    uint16_t pm1a_sts;  /* PM1a_EVT_BLK.PM1a_STS: status register */
>>>> +    uint16_t pm1a_en;   /* PM1a_EVT_BLK.PM1a_EN: enable register */
>>>> +#if defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__)
>>>> +    uint16_t gpe0_sts;
>>>> +    uint16_t gpe0_en;
>>>> +#endif
>>> Why inside another #ifdef? There's no other example in this file
>>> which might have suggested to you that it needs doing this way.
>>> In fact there are also no pre-existing uses of
>>> __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__ in this header, so I also don't see
>>> why you added one (and then with a slightly off value check).
>> Don't we want users of old interface to continue using original
>> definition of hvm_hw_timer? And not to expose them to the fix routine below?
> There shouldn't be any such old users, because of ...
>
>>> If anything the _whole_ header would need to become Xen/tools
>>> only.
> ... this.


Is this file is not supposed to be used by anyone outside of the Xen tree?


-boris

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