Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 10/14] mm / iommu: split need_iommu() into has_iommu_pt() and need_iommu_pt_sync()

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/23/18 12:47 PM, Paul Durrant wrote:
> The name 'need_iommu()' is a little confusing as it suggests a domain needs
> to use the IOMMU but something might not be set up yet, when in fact it
> represents a tri-state value (not a boolean as might be expected) where
> -1 means 'IOMMU mappings being set up' and 1 means 'IOMMU mappings have
> been fully set up'.
> 
> Two different meanings are also inferred from the macro it in various
> places in the code:
> 
> - Some callers want to test whether a domain has IOMMU mappings at all
> - Some callers want to test whether they need to synchronize the domain's
>   P2M and IOMMU mappings
> 
> This patch replaces the 'need_iommu' tri-state value with a defined
> enumeration and adds a boolean flag 'need_sync' to separate these meanings,
> and places both of these in struct domain_iommu, rather than directly in
> struct domain.
> This patch also creates two new boolean macros:
> 
> - 'has_iommu_pt()' evaluates to true if a domain has IOMMU mappings, even
>   if they are still under construction.
> - 'need_iommu_pt_sync()' evaluates to true if a domain requires explicit
>   synchronization of the P2M and IOMMU mappings.
> 
> All callers of need_iommu() are then modified to use the macro appropriate
> to what they are trying to test.
> 
> NOTE: The test of need_iommu(d) in the AMD IOMMU initialization code has
>       been replaced with a test of iommu_dom0_strict since this more
>       accurately reflects the meaning of the test and brings it into
>       line with a similar test in the Intel VT-d code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>

For the vm_event part:
Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Thanks,
Razvan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel