On 5/23/2016 6:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.05.16 at 01:42, <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com> wrote:
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>
The guest_iommu_init() is currently called by the following code path:
arch/x86/domain.c: arch_domain_create()
]- drivers/passthrough/iommu.c: iommu_domain_init()
|- drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c: amd_iommu_domain_init();
|- drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_guest.c: guest_iommu_init()
At this point, the hvm_domain_initialised() has not been called.
So register_mmio_handler() in guest_iommu_init() silently fails.
This patch moves the iommu_domain_init() to a later point after the
hvm_domain_intialise() instead.
That's one possible approach, which I continue to be not really
happy with. guest_iommu_init() really is HVM-specific, so maybe
no longer calling it from amd_iommu_domain_init() would be the
better solution (instead calling it from hvm_domain_initialise()
would then seem to be the better option). Thoughts?
Then, this goes back to the approach I proposed in the v1 of this patch
series, where I call guest_iommu_init/destroy() in the
svm_domain_initialise/destroy().
However, I'm still not quite clear in why the iommu_domain_init() is
needed before hvm_domain_initialise().
In any event is the choice of ...
@@ -675,6 +675,9 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d, unsigned int
domcr_flags,
return 0;
+ fail_1:
+ if ( has_hvm_container_domain(d) )
+ hvm_domain_destroy(d);
fail:
d->is_dying = DOMDYING_dead;
psr_domain_free(d);
... the new label name sub-optimal. Please pick something more
descriptive, e.g. "iommu_fail", if the current approach is to be
retained.
Jan
In case we are going with this approach, I will make this change.
Thanks,
Suravee
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
