[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH V2 07/23] xen/ioreq: Move x86's ioreq_gfn(server) to struct domain




On 12.11.20 13:21, Jan Beulich wrote:

Hi Jan

On 15.10.2020 18:44, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline int hvm_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server(struct 
domain *d,
      if ( flags & ~XEN_DMOP_IOREQ_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE )
          return -EINVAL;
- spin_lock_recursive(&d->arch.hvm.ioreq_server.lock);
+    spin_lock_recursive(&d->ioreq_server.lock);
s = get_ioreq_server(d, id); @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static inline int hvm_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server(struct domain *d,
      rc = p2m_set_ioreq_server(d, flags, s);
out:
-    spin_unlock_recursive(&d->arch.hvm.ioreq_server.lock);
+    spin_unlock_recursive(&d->ioreq_server.lock);
if ( rc == 0 && flags == 0 )
      {

Does this build at this point, when !CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER? Patch 1
moves the code here without guards, and patch 2, when introducing
the Kconfig symbol, doesn't add guards here. I admit I didn't
check further intermediate patches.
Yes.


I can confirm I checked x86 patch by patch with CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER, as for !CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER I can't recollect to be 100% sure, but likely I tested also patch by patch.
Anyway, I have just rechecked.
Probably it is because this header isn't in use with !CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER since all users are x86/hvm/* and common/ioreq.c


--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko




 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.