On 13.11.2023 23:21, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
> @@ -709,10 +710,17 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if ( vpci && !hvm )
> + {
> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vPCI requested for non-HVM guest\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> return 0;
> }
As said on the v5 thread, I think my comment was misguided (I'm sorry)
and this wants keeping in common code as you had it.
> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/xen.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/xen.h
> @@ -283,15 +283,16 @@ struct xen_arch_domainconfig {
> #define XEN_X86_EMU_PIT (1U<<_XEN_X86_EMU_PIT)
> #define _XEN_X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ 9
> #define XEN_X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ (1U<<_XEN_X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ)
> -#define _XEN_X86_EMU_VPCI 10
> -#define XEN_X86_EMU_VPCI (1U<<_XEN_X86_EMU_VPCI)
> +/*
> + * Note: bit 10 was previously used for a XEN_X86_EMU_VPCI flag. This bit
> should
> + * not be re-used without careful consideration.
> + */
I think a multi-line comment is drawing overly much attention to this.
How about "Note: Bit 10 was previously used for XEN_X86_EMU_VPCI. Re-use
with care." which I think fits in a single line comment.
Jan
