On 25.09.21 03:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> +x86 maintainers
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com>
>>
>> The PCI device remove path may now be used by PVH on ARM, so the
>> assert is no longer valid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com>
>> Cc: Ian Jackson <i...@xenproject.org>
>> Cc: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
>>
>> ---
>> tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c
>> index 1a1c2630803b..59f3686fc85e 100644
>> --- a/tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c
>> +++ b/tools/libs/light/libxl_pci.c
>> @@ -1947,8 +1947,6 @@ static void do_pci_remove(libxl__egc *egc,
>> pci_remove_state *prs)
>> goto out_fail;
>> }
>> } else {
>> - assert(type == LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV);
> This is fine for ARM, but is it OK from an x86 point of view considering
> the PVH implications?
Long time ago I was asking Roger about that. At first glance the change
seemed to be ok, but Roger could you please confirm this?
Thank you in advance,
Oleksandr
>
>
>> char *sysfs_path = GCSPRINTF(SYSFS_PCI_DEV"/"PCI_BDF"/resource",
>> pci->domain,
>> pci->bus, pci->dev, pci->func);
>> FILE *f = fopen(sysfs_path, "r");
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
