Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 05/15] iommu: don't domain_crash() inside iommu_map/unmap_page()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.08.18 at 10:05, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 07 August 2018 03:56
>> > From: Paul Durrant [mailto:paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 1:22 AM
>> >      if ( need_iommu(p2m->domain) &&
>> >           (lpae_valid(orig_pte) || lpae_valid(*entry)) )
>> > +    {
>> >          rc = iommu_iotlb_flush(p2m->domain, _bfn(gfn_x(sgfn)),
>> >                                 1UL << page_order);
>> > +        if ( unlikely(rc) && !is_hardware_domain(p2m->domain) )
>> > +            domain_crash(p2m->domain);
>> > +    }
>> 
>> to reduce duplication, does it make sense to introduce a wrapper
>> like domain_crash_nd ('nd' indicate !is_hardware_domain, and
>> becomes a nop for hardware domain)? Then it becomes:
>> 
>>      if ( unlikely(rc) )
>>              domain_crash_nd(p2m->domain);
> 
> That's a bigger change and I'd like to defer to the other maintainers as to 
> whether they think it is a good idea. I'm happy to change this in v6 if 
> anyone gives me a +1.

Well, if this is a common idiom, then yes, I think a helper would
be desirable. However - what is the _nd suffix supposed to
stand for? I'm inclined to suggest domu_crash().

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel