Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 10/13] xen/arm: support VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 20:07 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: keir@xxxxxxx
> CC: JBeulich@xxxxxxxx
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - do not export all the vcpu_op hypercalls to ARM guests, only
> VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info.
> ---
>  xen/arch/arm/domain.c           |   13 +++++++++++++
>  xen/arch/arm/traps.c            |    1 +
>  xen/include/asm-arm/hypercall.h |    3 +++
>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> index fee3790..a676441 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>   * GNU General Public License for more details.
>   */
>  #include <xen/config.h>
> +#include <xen/hypercall.h>
>  #include <xen/init.h>
>  #include <xen/lib.h>
>  #include <xen/sched.h>
> @@ -628,6 +629,18 @@ void arch_dump_domain_info(struct domain *d)
>       }
>  }
>  
> +
> +long do_restricted_vcpu_op(int cmd, int vcpuid, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) 
> arg)

This is a bit fugly but I suppose it's no worse than the other
alternatives I can think of.

I don't really like the "restricted" name but the other obvious
alternative do_arch_vcpu_op is out because typically that's called
*from* do_foo_op not instead of.

Is renaming do_vcpu_op to do_common_vcpu_op and adding do_vcpu_op as
per-arch on all architectures (basically a nop on x86) an option?

> +{
> +    switch ( cmd )
> +    {
> +        case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info:
> +            return do_vcpu_op(cmd, vcpuid, arg);
> +        default:
> +            return -EINVAL;

ENOSYS I think.

> +    }
> +}
> +
>  long arch_do_vcpu_op(int cmd, struct vcpu *v, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) 
> arg)
>  {
>      return -ENOSYS;
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> index 733099a..d69231c 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> @@ -617,6 +617,7 @@ static arm_hypercall_t arm_hypercall_table[] = {
>      HYPERCALL(sysctl, 2),
>      HYPERCALL(hvm_op, 2),
>      HYPERCALL(grant_table_op, 3),
> +    HYPERCALL(restricted_vcpu_op, 3),
>  };
>  
>  #define __PSCI_cpu_suspend 0
> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/hypercall.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/hypercall.h
> index 0833ec4..8ab0cc4 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/hypercall.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/hypercall.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
>  #include <public/domctl.h> /* for arch_do_domctl */
>  int do_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg);
>  
> +#define __HYPERVISOR_restricted_vcpu_op __HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op

I don't think this needs it's own #define, does it? (maybe that requires
an alternative HYPERCALL macro, that would be fine IMHO).

> +long do_restricted_vcpu_op(int cmd, int vcpuid, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) 
> arg);
> +
>  #endif /* __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ */
>  /*
>   * Local variables:



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel