[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
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |