[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v2 06/15] x86/p2m: guard altp2m code with CONFIG_ALTP2M option
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Sergiy Kibrik <sergiy_kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 13:44:48 +0300
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=epam.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=epam.com; dkim=pass header.d=epam.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-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=kpx9T7B2+zG/EYxXkneyTPeQ0oLcp7fIPBnmPbxjrsc=; b=GnwhHQDfi8EgF1D+B/DFR4VbUlbjEk9TI8R6xDsv+0EhvZnTnj7IJB9s4cn6Na/+OUQLvVlkyiI8p7hkW0w3c0Lyqezk1iD8NyuO28LK5Yjzp/S17Hp95Zo3B+umr34Wo+e6La6aXON9WL2Mjjevu/Lz7GUBMiqwUffdDY5rLtv2hJQafibmT1XIoUfzBnBgqO+DEV97KWXxqkykVxDPnbVkyJLluc11XqDxbeFVPwJk8x3q2H2mGxaaFgyEF5AJho4XVnzhCT74D2jUeivGHC07NVCS6OD783R3079JjtbKOEJ9rGOc/rWIBvk0FSv4h7KHMlrdJzAIssxK4YZFtw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=CiZUOwIoGOYrn6LrOXYgSf14BnG3YEdMFGVqWZmJdPDxQNYsf+H4t1LGq45cwcn73zxh+A7sAcCiqbEmj2NIs5iB+P6nvVsuucn6SRVeE6MKkb0x9TIRPCxPdhJFrKb6vXNnKzxO9TBT1SL7EypqtOonRI19Ys0n05a7FObPcIiJcp/BnFZqBCAVb69ys4gs/Co8vQKQ5J09Kbrmny4IQ3SvxmdUyUq9AFjngLgbeZe/ZgAQVtk17qxM1JKZdOV6fStVdRbhdfljjW46qOM78gD9rCIqr9X65lhu1A5THlDgepZirY+Wn4obg4iMKbr4QAqO1TaPZVFd2mZVksRW5w==
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xenia Ragiadakou <xenia.ragiadakou@xxxxxxx>, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 23 May 2024 10:45:29 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
16.05.24 14:01, Jan Beulich:
On 15.05.2024 11:10, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
@@ -38,7 +38,10 @@ static inline bool altp2m_active(const struct domain *d)
}
/* Only declaration is needed. DCE will optimise it out when linking. */
+void altp2m_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v);
+void altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v);
uint16_t altp2m_vcpu_idx(const struct vcpu *v);
+int altp2m_vcpu_enable_ve(struct vcpu *v, gfn_t gfn);
void altp2m_vcpu_disable_ve(struct vcpu *v);
These additions look unrelated, as long as the description says nothing in
this regard.
agree, I'll update description on why these declarations are added
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
@@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static inline bool hvm_hap_supported(void)
/* returns true if hardware supports alternate p2m's */
static inline bool hvm_altp2m_supported(void)
{
- return hvm_funcs.caps.altp2m;
+ return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ALTP2M) && hvm_funcs.caps.altp2m;
Which in turn raises the question whether the altp2m struct field shouldn't
become conditional upon CONFIG_ALTP2M too (or rather: instead, as the change
here then would need to be done differently). Yet maybe that would entail
further changes elsewhere, so may well better be left for later.
but hvm_funcs.caps.altp2m is only a capability bit -- is it worth to
become conditional?
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
obj-y += shadow/
obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += hap/
-obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += altp2m.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ALTP2M) += altp2m.o
This change I think wants to move to patch 5.
If this moves to patch 5 then HVM=y && ALTP2M=n configuration
combination will break the build in between patch 5 and 6, so I've
decided to put it together with fixes of these build failures in patch 6.
Maybe I can merge patch 5 & 6 together then ?
-Sergiy
|
