On 24/05/2022 16:14, Jan Beulich wrote: > [CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT reply, click links, or open attachments > unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. > > On 18.05.2022 15:27, Jane Malalane wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h >> @@ -14,8 +14,14 @@ >> >> #define has_32bit_shinfo(d) ((d)->arch.has_32bit_shinfo) >> >> +/* >> + * Set to true if either the global vector-type callback or per-vCPU >> + * LAPIC vectors are used. Assume all vCPUs will use >> + * HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector as long as the initial vCPU does. >> + */ >> #define is_hvm_pv_evtchn_domain(d) (is_hvm_domain(d) && \ >> - (d)->arch.hvm.irq->callback_via_type == HVMIRQ_callback_vector) >> + ((d)->arch.hvm.irq->callback_via_type == HVMIRQ_callback_vector || \ >> + (d)->vcpu[0]->arch.hvm.evtchn_upcall_vector)) >> #define is_hvm_pv_evtchn_vcpu(v) (is_hvm_pv_evtchn_domain(v->domain)) > > I continue to think that with the vCPU0 dependency added to > is_hvm_pv_evtchn_domain(), is_hvm_pv_evtchn_vcpu() should either > be adjusted as well (to check the correct vCPU's field) or be > deleted (and the sole caller be replaced). > > Jan I will replace it in a newer version of the patch.
Thank you. Jane.
