On 06.10.2021 12:58, Michal Orzel wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> @@ -692,6 +692,12 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if ( config->flags & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu )
> + {
> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vpmu support not ready yet\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
I consider this message potentially misleading (as x86 does have vPMU
support, it merely doesn't get enabled this way). But isn't this redundant
with ...
> @@ -534,6 +535,12 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if ( vpmu && !vpmu_is_available )
> + {
> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vpmu requested but not available\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
... this? (This message is again potentially misleading.)
> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> @@ -70,9 +70,12 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu (1U<<_XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu)
> #define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt 6
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt)
> +/* Should we expose the vPMU to the guest? */
> +#define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu 7
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu)
Like for the earlier patch, I think we should stop with the bad habit of
defining both the bit position and the mask separately.
Jan
