On 28/03/2019 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ void print_vtd_entries(struct iommu *iom
> keyhandler_fn_t vtd_dump_iommu_info;
>
> bool intel_iommu_supports_eim(void);
> +int intel_iommu_enable_x2apic_IR(void);
> +void intel_iommu_disable_x2apic_IR(void);
Is there any particular reason why these retain their _IR suffix?
I'd suggest going with intel_iommu_{en,dis}able_eim() to match the
supports name here, whereas...
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> @@ -2720,6 +2720,8 @@ const struct iommu_ops __initconstrel in
> .free_page_table = iommu_free_page_table,
> .reassign_device = reassign_device_ownership,
> .get_device_group_id = intel_iommu_group_id,
> + .enable_x2apic_IR = intel_iommu_enable_x2apic_IR,
> + .disable_x2apic_IR = intel_iommu_disable_x2apic_IR,
> .update_ire_from_apic = io_apic_write_remap_rte,
> .update_ire_from_msi = msi_msg_write_remap_rte,
> .read_apic_from_ire = io_apic_read_remap_rte,
> @@ -2736,6 +2738,7 @@ const struct iommu_ops __initconstrel in
> };
>
> const struct iommu_init_ops __initconstrel intel_iommu_init_ops = {
> + .ops = &intel_iommu_ops,
> .setup = vtd_setup,
> .supports_x2apic = intel_iommu_supports_eim,
> };
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,24 @@
> const struct iommu_init_ops *__initdata iommu_init_ops;
> struct iommu_ops __read_mostly iommu_ops;
>
> +int iommu_enable_x2apic_IR(void)
... using iommu_{en,dis}able_x2apic() here to match the
supports_x2apic() init hook.
I don't think these shorter names are any more ambiguous, and loosing
the _IR suffix does make them more consistent with the rest of Xen's
function naming conventions.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
