Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86/iommu: remove regions not to be mapped

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 05.12.2023 16:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:11:21PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.12.2023 10:43, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> @@ -2136,6 +2136,54 @@ int __hwdom_init xen_in_range(unsigned long mfn)
>>>      return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +int __hwdom_init remove_xen_ranges(struct rangeset *r)
>>> +{
>>> +    paddr_t start, end;
>>> +    int rc;
>>> +
>>> +    /* S3 resume code (and other real mode trampoline code) */
>>> +    rc = rangeset_remove_range(r, PFN_DOWN(bootsym_phys(trampoline_start)),
>>> +                               PFN_DOWN(bootsym_phys(trampoline_end)));
>>> +    if ( rc )
>>> +        return rc;
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * This needs to remain in sync with the uses of the same symbols in
>>> +     * - __start_xen()
>>> +     * - is_xen_fixed_mfn()
>>> +     * - tboot_shutdown()
>>> +     */
>>
>> As you're duplicating this comment from xen_in_range(), you want to
>> - also mention xen_in_range() here,
>> - also update xen_in_range()'s comment,
> 
> xen_in_range() is going away in the last patch, hence I did bother tyo
> update it.
> 
>> - also update the respective comments in __start_xen() that also mention
>>   xen_in_range().
> 
> That's done in patch 6/6.
> 
>> Everything else here looks good to me.
> 
> Let me know if doing such changes in a later patch is OK.

If xen_in_range() is indeed going to go away (see my question there), I'd be
okay-ish with that.

Jan