On 12/10/18 6:59 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: > On 12/10/18 6:49 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 06:01:49PM +0200, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h >>> index 66f2474..b63249e 100644 >>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h >>> @@ -52,4 +52,10 @@ void vm_event_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v, >>> vm_event_response_t *rsp) >>> /* Not supported on ARM. */ >>> } >>> >>> +static inline >>> +void vm_event_block_interrupts(struct vcpu *v, bool value) >>> +{ >>> + /* Not supported on ARM. */ >> >> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE? > > Will do (although if you look at the rest of the function in that header > it'll break what appears to be the prior convention).
Sorry, on second thought we can't do that, because that function is being called from the common code - which is why the function became necessary. Specifically, this it unconditionally called in monitor_traps(), which is used for all events (ARM and otherwise). So it's valid to call monitor_traps() for ARM vm_events and expect it to run without issue, which ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() would of course break. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel