On 30.11.2023 03:47, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
> On 11/14/23 04:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.11.2023 23:21, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h
>>> @@ -503,6 +503,8 @@ struct arch_domain
>>> #define has_vpit(d) (!!((d)->arch.emulation_flags & X86_EMU_PIT))
>>> #define has_pirq(d) (!!((d)->arch.emulation_flags &
>>> X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ))
>>>
>>> +#define arch_needs_vpci(d) ({ (void)(d); false; })
>>
>> See my comments on the v5 thread on both this and ...
>
> So, the goal here is to return true for a PVH dom0, and false otherwise (for
> now). Since dom0 can't feasibly be full HVM, and is_hvm_domain(d) returns
> true for PVH, how about the following?
>
> /* TODO: re-visit when vPCI is enabled for PVH domUs. */
> #define arch_needs_vpci(d) ({ \
> const struct domain *_d = (d); \
> is_hardware_domain(_d) && is_hvm_domain(_d); })
Looks okay to me, except for the leading underscore in _d (see respective
Misra guidelines, merely re-enforcing what the C standard says). Of course
the double evaluate_nospec() isn't quite nice in the result, but I guess
this isn't going to be used in many places?
Jan
