Re: [PATCH V1 07/16] xen/dm: Make x86's DM feature common

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 24.09.20 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:

Hi Jan

> On 22.09.2020 18:46, Oleksandr wrote:
> > On 14.09.20 18:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Hi Jan
> >
> > > On 10.09.2020 22:22, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h
> > > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h
> > > > @@ -150,6 +150,18 @@ do_dm_op(
> > > >        unsigned int nr_bufs,
> > > >        XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_dm_op_buf_t) bufs);
> > > >    
> > > > +struct dmop_args {
> > > > +    domid_t domid;
> > > > +    unsigned int nr_bufs;
> > > > +    /* Reserve enough buf elements for all current hypercalls. */
> > > > +    struct xen_dm_op_buf buf[2];
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +int arch_dm_op(struct xen_dm_op *op,
> > > > +               struct domain *d,
> > > > +               const struct dmop_args *op_args,
> > > > +               bool *const_op);
> > > > +
> > > >    #ifdef CONFIG_HYPFS
> > > >    extern long
> > > >    do_hypfs_op(
> > > There are exactly two CUs which need to see these two declarations.
> > > Personally I think they should go into a new header, or at least
> > > into one that half-way fits (from the pov of its other contents)
> > > and doesn't get included by half the code base. But maybe it's
> > > just me ...
> > I am afraid, I didn't get why this header is not suitable for keeping
> > this stuff...
> While I have no major objection against exposing arch_dm_op() to more
> than just the relevant CUs, I don't think I'd like to see struct
> dmop_args becoming visible to "everyone", and in particular changes
> to it causing a re-build of (almost) everything.
Thank you for clarification, I got your point

--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko