Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 6/8] x86: switch xen guest implementation to use hypervisor framework

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.11.2019 19:50, Wei Liu wrote:
> +void __init hypervisor_setup(void)
> +{
> +    if ( hops && hops->setup )
> +        hops->setup();
> +}
> +
> +void hypervisor_ap_setup(void)
> +{
> +    if ( hops && hops->ap_setup )
> +        hops->ap_setup();
> +}
> +
> +void hypervisor_resume(void)
> +{
> +    if ( hops && hops->resume )
> +        hops->resume();
> +}

I assume these don't get executed frequently enough for
alternatives indirect call patching to matter? Down the road, if
any more frequently executed hooks should appear, we will want
to switch to that model though. This has the added benefit of
there then being only one runtime instance of struct
hypervisor_ops; all per-hypervisor ones would become
__initconstrel.

> @@ -326,6 +310,31 @@ void hypervisor_resume(void)
>          pv_console_init();
>  }
>  
> +static const struct hypervisor_ops xg_ops = {

With this new xg_ prefix, ...

> +    .name = "Xen",
> +    .setup = xen_setup,
> +    .ap_setup = xen_ap_setup,
> +    .resume = xen_resume,

... I'd like to suggest to use it for these ones too (if they
need to have a prefix in the first place, which I doubt, but
which I know others view differently).

> +const struct hypervisor_ops * __init xen_probe(void)

For this one the call is a little more difficult, but for
consistency I think xg_ would be slightly better here as well.

Nit: Strictly speaking there's a stray blank after *. We
normally have ones only ahead of *, but not after.

Jan

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