Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 09/11] vpci/msi: add MSI handlers

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.10.17 at 13:17, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:35:26AM +0000, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:34:13AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > >>> On 19.09.17 at 17:29, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > +static void vpci_msi_enable(const struct pci_dev *pdev, struct vpci_msi 
>> > > *msi,
>> > > +                            unsigned int vectors)
>> > > +{
>> > > +    int ret;
>> > > +
>> > > +    ASSERT(!msi->enabled);
>> > > +    ret = vpci_msi_arch_enable(msi, pdev, vectors);
>> > > +    if ( ret )
>> > > +        return;
>> > > +
>> > > +    /* Apply the mask bits. */
>> > > +    if ( msi->masking )
>> > > +    {
>> > > +        unsigned int i;
>> > > +        uint32_t mask = msi->mask;
>> > > +
>> > > +        for ( i = ffs(mask) - 1; mask && i < vectors; i = ffs(mask) - 1 
>> > > )
>> > > +        {
>> > > +            vpci_msi_arch_mask(msi, pdev, i, true);
>> > > +            __clear_bit(i, &mask);
>> > > +        }
>> > > +    }
>> > > +
>> > > +    __msi_set_enable(pdev->seg, pdev->bus, PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn),
>> > > +                     PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn), msi->pos, 1);
>> > 
>> > This is very unlikely to be a function that arch-independent code is
>> > permitted to call.
>> 
>> Right, I could remove the '__' prefix, or introduce a
>> vpci_msi_arch_dev_enable helper that calls this function.
> 
> So would using msi_set_enable instead be acceptable?

Not really, no, the more that it's static (and should remain so);
__msi_set_enable() not being static is also just because of an
AMD IOMMU oddity. These are low level functions that higher
layers aren't supposed to call directly.

Jan

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