On 10.11.2020 20:44, Oleksandr wrote: > > On 20.10.20 13:38, Paul Durrant wrote: > > Hi Jan, Paul > > Sorry for the late response. > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >>> Sent: 20 October 2020 11:05 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: 'Oleksandr Tyshchenko' <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; 'Oleksandr >>> Tyshchenko' <[email protected]>; 'Andrew Cooper' >>> <[email protected]>; 'Roger Pau >>> Monné' <[email protected]>; 'Wei Liu' <[email protected]>; 'Julien Grall' >>> <[email protected]>; 'Stefano >>> Stabellini' <[email protected]>; 'Julien Grall' <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 04/23] xen/ioreq: Provide alias for the handle_mmio() >>> >>> On 20.10.2020 11:14, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>>> From: Xen-devel <[email protected]> On Behalf Of >>>>> Oleksandr Tyshchenko >>>>> Sent: 15 October 2020 17:44 >>>>> >>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h >>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h >>>>> @@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ static inline bool arch_hvm_ioreq_destroy(struct >>>>> domain *d) >>>>> #define IOREQ_STATUS_UNHANDLED X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE >>>>> #define IOREQ_STATUS_RETRY X86EMUL_RETRY >>>>> >>>>> +#define ioreq_complete_mmio handle_mmio >>>>> + >>>> A #define? Really? Can we not have a static inline? >>> I guess this would require further shuffling: handle_mmio() is >>> an inline function in hvm/emulate.h, and hvm/ioreq.h has no >>> need to include the former (and imo it also shouldn't have). >>> >> I see. I think we need an x86 ioreq.c anyway, to deal with the legacy use of >> magic pages, so it could be dealt with there instead. > I am afraid I don't entirely understand the required changes. Could you > please clarify where the "inline(?)" ioreq_complete_mmio() should > live? I included hvm/emulate.h here not for the "handle_mmio()" reason > only, but for "struct hvm_emulate_ctxt" also (see arch_io_completion()).
I'm sorry, but in the context of this patch there's no use of any struct hvm_emulate_ctxt instance. I'm not going to wade through 23 patches to find what you mean. > But, if we return x86 ioreq.c back I can move arch_io_completion() to it > as well as "non-online" ioreq_complete_mmio(). > This will avoid including hvm/emulate.h here. Or I missed something? I suppose an out-of-line function as kind of a last resort solution is what Paul had in mind. To be honest I'd prefer to avoid the extra call layer though, if possible. Jan
