Re: [PATCH v1 06/17] xen/riscv: map IMSIC interrupt file for vCPUs

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10.08.2026 10:50, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> On 8/6/26 4:48 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.07.2026 18:02, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> +#ifdef IMSIC_DEBUG
>>> +    printk("%s: %pv: ga(%#lx) -> pa(%#lx), cpu(%#x), guest_file_id(%d) "
>>> +           "base_addr(%#lx) offset(%#lx)\n", __func__, v, gaddr, paddr, 
>>> cpu,
>>> +           vsfile_id, imsic_cfg.msi[cpu].base_addr, 
>>> imsic_cfg.msi[cpu].offset);
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> +    res = map_regions_p2mt(d, gaddr_to_gfn(gaddr),
>>> +                           PFN_DOWN(IMSIC_MMIO_PAGE_SZ), 
>>> maddr_to_mfn(paddr),
>>> +                           arch_dt_passthrough_p2m_type());
>>> +    if ( res )
>>> +        printk("%s: Failed to map %#lx to the guest at %#lx\n",
>>> +               __func__, paddr, gaddr);
>>
>> I think you mean to use PRIpaddr with paddr_t (oddly enough there's no
>> PRIgaddr).
> 
> I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be better to use paddr_t for gaddr as well, 
> since technically it is a guest *physical address*. In that case, 
> PRIpaddr could be used to print both paddr and gaddr variables.
> 
> Also, could this be the reason why PRIgaddr doesn’t exist? Basically, a 
> GPA could be considered a physical address, while for a GVA there is 
> already PRIvaddr.

Well. There's nothing wrong with guest {physical,virtual} addresses to be
a different width compared to the host's. They could be both smaller and
(in principle) larger. As long as higher-bitness guests can't be run on a
smaller-bitness hypervisor, using paddr_t for gaddr-s is okay(ish).

Jan