| Message ID | 1402935486-29136-14-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
>>> On 16.06.14 at 18:18, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl( > break; > > default: > - ret = iommu_do_domctl(domctl, d, u_domctl); > + ret = -ENOSYS; > break; > } > > diff --git a/xen/common/domctl.c b/xen/common/domctl.c > index 5d3ac87..85866b7 100644 > --- a/xen/common/domctl.c > +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c > @@ -1028,6 +1028,10 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) > > default: > ret = arch_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); > +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH > + if ( ret == -ENOSYS ) > + ret = iommu_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); > +#endif > break; > } > To be honest I'm not convinced of this approach. I'd prefer ARM's arch_do_domctl() to invoke iommu_do_domctl() just like x86's does. In particular I'm neither in favor of checking for specific error codes before chaining, nor do I think that - despite there being a number of such cases in the tree - ENOSYS is the right error value for not implemented sub-hypercalls (to me only top level hypercalls may produce this). Jan
Hi Jan, On 06/17/2014 09:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 16.06.14 at 18:18, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c >> @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl( >> break; >> >> default: >> - ret = iommu_do_domctl(domctl, d, u_domctl); >> + ret = -ENOSYS; >> break; >> } >> >> diff --git a/xen/common/domctl.c b/xen/common/domctl.c >> index 5d3ac87..85866b7 100644 >> --- a/xen/common/domctl.c >> +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c >> @@ -1028,6 +1028,10 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) >> >> default: >> ret = arch_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); >> +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH >> + if ( ret == -ENOSYS ) >> + ret = iommu_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); >> +#endif >> break; >> } >> > > To be honest I'm not convinced of this approach. I'd prefer ARM's > arch_do_domctl() to invoke iommu_do_domctl() just like x86's does. > In particular I'm neither in favor of checking for specific error codes > before chaining, nor do I think that - despite there being a number > of such cases in the tree - ENOSYS is the right error value for not > implemented sub-hypercalls (to me only top level hypercalls may > produce this). Ok. I will add the iommu_do_domctl call directh in arch_do_domctl. Regards,
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c index 437ba11..ffecc15 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl( break; default: - ret = iommu_do_domctl(domctl, d, u_domctl); + ret = -ENOSYS; break; } diff --git a/xen/common/domctl.c b/xen/common/domctl.c index 5d3ac87..85866b7 100644 --- a/xen/common/domctl.c +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c @@ -1028,6 +1028,10 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) default: ret = arch_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH + if ( ret == -ENOSYS ) + ret = iommu_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl); +#endif break; }
The call iommu_do_domctl is similar as the x86 one. Move this code to the common code and protected by HAS_PASSTHROUGH. Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- xen/arch/x86/domctl.c | 2 +- xen/common/domctl.c | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)