Hi Stewart,
> On 29 Nov 2023, at 9:25 pm, Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebr...@amd.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
I tested this patch and observed build failure when compiling the "x86_64” arch
with
"CONFIG_HVM=n“ option.
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld -melf_x86_64 -T arch/x86/xen.lds -N prelink.o
--build-id=sha1 \
./common/symbols-dummy.o -o ./.xen-syms.0
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: prelink.o: in function `arch_iommu_hwdom_init’:
(.init.text+0x2192b): undefined reference to `vpci_is_mmcfg_address’
(.init.text+0x2192b): relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PLT32 against
undefined symbol `vpci_is_mmcfg_address'
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: (.init.text+0x21947): undefined reference to
`vpci_is_mmcfg_address'
(.init.text+0x21947): relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PLT32 against
undefined symbol `vpci_is_mmcfg_address'
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: prelink.o: in function `do_physdev_op’:
(.text.do_physdev_op+0x6db): undefined reference to
`register_vpci_mmcfg_handler'
(.text.do_physdev_op+0x6db): relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PLT32
against undefined symbol `register_vpci_mmcfg_handler'
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: ./.xen-syms.0: hidden symbol `vpci_is_mmcfg_address' isn't
defined
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: final link failed: bad value
Regards,
Rahul
>
>>
>>> --- 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
