[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/6] iommu: tidy up iommu_us_hap_pt() and need_iommu_pt_sync() macros
- To: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:41:18 +0200
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, TimDeegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:41:28 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 30.07.2019 15:44, Paul Durrant wrote:
Thes macros really ought to live in the common xen/iommu.h header rather
then being distributed amongst architecture specific iommu headers and
xen/sched.h. This patch moves them there.
NOTE: Disabling 'sharept' in the command line iommu options should really
be hard error on ARM (as opposed to just being ignored), so avoid
parsing that option if CONFIG_ARM is set.
Agreed. At that point the latest it would perhaps be good to have
Arm have
#define iommu_hap_pt_share true
--- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
@@ -268,6 +268,13 @@ struct domain_iommu {
#define iommu_set_feature(d, f) set_bit(f, dom_iommu(d)->features)
#define iommu_clear_feature(d, f) clear_bit(f, dom_iommu(d)->features)
+/* Are we using the domain P2M table as its IOMMU pagetable? */
+#define iommu_use_hap_pt(d) \
+ (hap_enabled(d) && is_iommu_enabled(d) && iommu_hap_pt_share)
Does this build for Arm, seeing that there's no hap_enabled()
definition there? Or have I missed its addition earlier in this
series?
--- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
@@ -963,12 +963,6 @@ static inline bool is_hwdom_pinned_vcpu(const struct vcpu
*v)
cpumask_weight(v->cpu_hard_affinity) == 1);
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
-#define need_iommu_pt_sync(d) (dom_iommu(d)->need_sync)
-#else
-#define need_iommu_pt_sync(d) false
-#endif
The "#else" part of this gets lost - is this intentional, i.e.
are there no references left that could be a problem without
HAS_PASSTHROUGH?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
