On 06.12.2024 05:41, Denis Mukhin via B4 Relay wrote:
> --- a/xen/drivers/char/consoled.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/char/consoled.c
> @@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ struct xencons_interface *consoled_get_ring_addr(void)
> static char buf[BUF_SZ + 1];
>
> /* Receives characters from a domain's PV console */
> -void consoled_guest_rx(void)
> +int consoled_guest_rx(void)
> {
> size_t idx = 0;
> XENCONS_RING_IDX cons, prod;
>
> if ( !cons_ring )
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
> spin_lock(&rx_lock);
>
> @@ -91,15 +91,17 @@ void consoled_guest_rx(void)
>
> out:
> spin_unlock(&rx_lock);
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /* Sends a character into a domain's PV console */
> -void consoled_guest_tx(char c)
> +int consoled_guest_tx(char c)
> {
> XENCONS_RING_IDX cons, prod;
>
> if ( !cons_ring )
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
> cons = ACCESS_ONCE(cons_ring->in_cons);
> prod = cons_ring->in_prod;
> @@ -118,6 +120,7 @@ void consoled_guest_tx(char c)
>
> cons_ring->in[MASK_XENCONS_IDX(prod++, cons_ring->in)] = c;
>
> +
> /* Write to the ring before updating the pointer */
No excess blank lines please.
> @@ -125,6 +128,13 @@ void consoled_guest_tx(char c)
> notify:
> /* Always notify the guest: prevents receive path from getting stuck. */
> pv_shim_inject_evtchn(pv_console_evtchn());
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
For both of the functions - what use is it to make the functions return
a value, when all they'd ever return is zero (and callers don't care)?
I'm also having a hard time seeing how this adjustment is related to ...
> +bool consoled_is_enabled(void)
> +{
> + return pv_shim && pv_console;
> }
... the introduction of this function (which by itself is probably fine).
Jan
