On 2024/2/23 08:44, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Jiqian Chen wrote: >> On PVH dom0, the gsis don't get registered, but >> the gsi of a passthrough device must be configured for it to >> be able to be mapped into a hvm domU. >> On Linux kernel side, it calles PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi for >> passthrough devices to register gsi when dom0 is PVH. >> So, add PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi for above purpose. >> >> Co-developed-by: Huang Rui <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <[email protected]> >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c >> index 493998b42ec5..46f51ee459f6 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c >> @@ -76,6 +76,12 @@ long hvm_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) >> arg) >> case PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq: >> break; >> >> + case PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi: >> + if ( !is_hardware_domain(currd) ) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + ASSERT(!has_pirq(currd)); > > Do we really need this assert? I understand that the use case right now > is for !has_pirq(currd) but in general it doesn't seem to me that > PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi and !has_pirq should be tied together. Make sense, thanks for explanation, I will delete this in next version.
> > Aside from that, it looks fine. > > >> + break; >> + >> case PHYSDEVOP_eoi: >> case PHYSDEVOP_irq_status_query: >> case PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq: >> -- >> 2.34.1 >> -- Best regards, Jiqian Chen.
