On 12.01.2023 13:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.01.2023 09:45, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> @@ -2143,6 +2143,14 @@ static bool cf_check vmx_test_pir(const struct vcpu
>> *v, uint8_t vec)
>> return pi_test_pir(vec, &v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc);
>> }
>>
>> +static int cf_check vmx_pi_update_irte(const struct vcpu *v,
>> + const struct pirq *pirq, uint8_t
>> gvec)
>> +{
>> + const struct pi_desc *pi_desc = v ? &v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc : NULL;
>> +
>> + return pi_update_irte(pi_desc, pirq, gvec);
>> +}
>
> This being the only caller of pi_update_irte(), I don't see the point in
> having the extra wrapper. Adjust pi_update_irte() such that it can be
> used as the intended hook directly. Plus perhaps prefix it with vtd_.
Plus move it to vtd/x86/hvm.c (!HVM builds shouldn't need it), albeit I
realize this could be done independent of your work. In principle the
function shouldn't be VT-d specific (and could hence live in x86/hvm.c),
as msi_msg_write_remap_rte() is already available as IOMMU hook anyway,
provided struct pi_desc turns out compatible with what's going to be
needed for AMD.
Jan
