Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] passthrough/pci: properly qualify the mem_sharing_enabled check...

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 03 July 2019 14:20
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau Monne 
> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap
> <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; WeiLiu 
> <wl@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] passthrough/pci: properly qualify the 
> mem_sharing_enabled check...
> 
> On 01.07.2019 15:17, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
> > @@ -1450,7 +1450,7 @@ static int assign_device(struct domain *d, u16 seg, 
> > u8 bus, u8 devfn, u32
> flag)
> >
> >       /* Prevent device assign if mem paging or mem sharing have been
> >        * enabled for this domain */
> > -    if ( unlikely(d->arch.hvm.mem_sharing_enabled ||
> > +    if ( unlikely(mem_sharing_enabled(d) ||
> >                     vm_event_check_ring(d->vm_event_paging) ||
> >                     p2m_get_hostp2m(d)->global_logdirty) )
> >           return -EXDEV;
> 
> This change is redundant with the more extensive one by
> "x86/HVM: p2m_ram_ro is incompatible with device pass-through",
> of which I've sent v2 earlier today, and v1 of which has been
> pending for quite some time without having heard back from
> other than you.

Agreed, but I still think it's a good idea to move the mem_sharing_enabled() 
macro into domain.h, so maybe incorporate that into your patch? I'll take a 
look at v2 as soon as I can.

  Paul

> 
> Jan

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