On 11/14/23 04:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.
I'll move it back to xen/common/domain.c. No worries.
>
>> --- 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.
Sounds good.
>
> Jan
