Hi,
On 6/4/19 1:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Its management shouldn't be arch-specific, and in particular there
should be no need for special precautions when creating the special
domains.
At this occasion
- correct parenthesization of for_each_pdev(),
- stop open-coding for_each_pdev() in vPCI code.
From an Arm POV, this makes sense. With one comment below.
@@ -476,8 +474,6 @@ struct arch_domain
#define has_pirq(d) (!!((d)->arch.emulation_flags & X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ))
#define has_vpci(d) (!!((d)->arch.emulation_flags & X86_EMU_VPCI))
-#define has_arch_pdevs(d) (!list_empty(&(d)->arch.pdev_list))
-
#define gdt_ldt_pt_idx(v) \
((v)->vcpu_id >> (PAGETABLE_ORDER - GDT_LDT_VCPU_SHIFT))
#define pv_gdt_ptes(v) \
--- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
@@ -121,7 +121,9 @@ struct pci_dev {
};
#define for_each_pdev(domain, pdev) \
- list_for_each_entry(pdev, &(domain->arch.pdev_list), domain_list)
+ list_for_each_entry(pdev, &(domain)->pdev_list, domain_list)
+
+#define has_arch_pdevs(d) (!list_empty(&(d)->pdev_list))
This feels a bit strange to keep "arch" in the macro name when the code
is now generic. How about "domain_has_pdevs"?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
