[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v1 13/14] xen/arm: Fixed error when PCI device is assigned to guest
- To: Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:12:40 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=JJZORqtucVApWQgaGg79zXuwp7iiOAVUA/gC1m6H+ic=; b=HWqOtjncEZAovVSwUGDHYT1AkhsYz9grhc5UoU30TsGPmU3zYZwgLsoLLFNlKsS/Xp73HynN/huoGdoDNyFgvvj9kMFOeBrFxwSKWoawKNIQR/Jv5KMrL1/ic4PVQueJ3QcrIhNjaSAo/pFLPIpFl/CpYEk+Nah1wXVsFn8Ejje7e7xXodPZcTBjAx9GQ5acg6KQ7vGJeh86vZeqStoS6N7ufGylTrkO1dDHE6cWgAVQyexdB4TTkd2G93cSc6brt9IISKb5gmAu4fpLjZIQDZ1FWdGAwZ428Enm3tBDqtwIHMthHyd+UeTc9kgTN5KQoKX8tnf2UGXGD9eq+AGgWA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JAnis6eCQh2WJZ7j8Ro36KPnD/szTIEQRwqbNz/ZmLNkgnYMo58TtrESTBWVOrrFXC9yanKSkC9tSul6AJf18XDdje8YgATR+EBKaIvORoZzVTEAFg3SJmojGZMjtCF6NS2qSfJZD4VACjxuh54ihYKm4morqT+Vnx9LcsagEo7QgIowCYYx2effxCM2lQzLICKEvSZVh0M0Yax81MPgEPyxMqt/0sVSDtMEOYgCewqveI9Q4m716nXpoChzzP7vtyGpEfpTn09JxBK4av5EbSPHR5iwhEWz16jdAOBC/0QcsfN1u1lDefi43aR1eYLEBWtP/96EPrC+ITIozO9BiA==
- Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:12:53 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 19.08.2021 14:02, Rahul Singh wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domctl.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domctl.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,8 @@ long arch_do_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct
> domain *d,
>
> return rc;
> }
> + case XEN_DOMCTL_ioport_permission:
> + return 0;
I don't think returning success for something that doesn't make
much sense in the first place (there aren't truly "I/O ports" on
Arm afaik) is a good idea. Instead I think the tool stack should
avoid making arch-specific calls in an arch-independent way.
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/physdev.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/physdev.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ int do_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
> break;
> }
> #endif
> + case PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq:
> + case PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq:
> + break;
Less sure here, but I'm not convinced either.
Jan
|
