On 17.03.25 17:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2025 14:34, Mykyta Poturai wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -16,9 +16,18 @@
>> #include <xen/device_tree.h>
>> #include <xen/errno.h>
>> #include <xen/init.h>
>> +#include <xen/iommu.h>
>> #include <xen/param.h>
>> #include <xen/pci.h>
>>
>> +bool is_pci_passthrough_enabled(bool dom0)
>> +{
>> + if ( dom0 )
>> + return pci_passthrough_enabled || iommu_enabled;
>
> As I think I said before - the function's name now no longer expresses
> what it really checks. That (imo heavily) misleading at the use sites
> of this function.
Hi Jan,
I've spent some more time thinking about how to better deal with this.
In the end, I think your earlier suggestion about introducing a new arch
specific function is the best approach, but I want to agree on the
naming before sending new patches. Would "arch_requires_pci_physdev" be
an appropriate name in your opinion?
At the call sites it will look like this:
case PHYSDEVOP_pci_device_remove: {
struct physdev_pci_device dev;
if ( !is_pci_passthrough_enabled() && !arch_requires_pci_physdev())
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
--
Mykyta
