On 11.11.2020 09:09, Oleksandr wrote: > > On 11.11.20 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Hi Jan > >> On 10.11.2020 20:44, Oleksandr wrote: >>> On 20.10.20 13:38, Paul Durrant wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jan, Paul >>> >>> Sorry for the late response. >>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>>>> Sent: 20 October 2020 11:05 >>>>> To: p...@xen.org >>>>> Cc: 'Oleksandr Tyshchenko' <olekst...@gmail.com>; >>>>> xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; 'Oleksandr >>>>> Tyshchenko' <oleksandr_tyshche...@epam.com>; 'Andrew Cooper' >>>>> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; 'Roger Pau >>>>> Monné' <roger....@citrix.com>; 'Wei Liu' <w...@xen.org>; 'Julien Grall' >>>>> <jul...@xen.org>; 'Stefano >>>>> Stabellini' <sstabell...@kernel.org>; 'Julien Grall' >>>>> <julien.gr...@arm.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 04/23] xen/ioreq: Provide alias for the >>>>> handle_mmio() >>>>> >>>>> On 20.10.2020 11:14, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>>>>> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org> On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Oleksandr Tyshchenko >>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2020 17:44 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h >>>>>>> @@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ static inline bool arch_hvm_ioreq_destroy(struct >>>>>>> domain *d) >>>>>>> #define IOREQ_STATUS_UNHANDLED X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE >>>>>>> #define IOREQ_STATUS_RETRY X86EMUL_RETRY >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +#define ioreq_complete_mmio handle_mmio >>>>>>> + >>>>>> A #define? Really? Can we not have a static inline? >>>>> I guess this would require further shuffling: handle_mmio() is >>>>> an inline function in hvm/emulate.h, and hvm/ioreq.h has no >>>>> need to include the former (and imo it also shouldn't have). >>>>> >>>> I see. I think we need an x86 ioreq.c anyway, to deal with the legacy use >>>> of magic pages, so it could be dealt with there instead. >>> I am afraid I don't entirely understand the required changes. Could you >>> please clarify where the "inline(?)" ioreq_complete_mmio() should >>> live? I included hvm/emulate.h here not for the "handle_mmio()" reason >>> only, but for "struct hvm_emulate_ctxt" also (see arch_io_completion()). >> I'm sorry, but in the context of this patch there's no use of any >> struct hvm_emulate_ctxt instance. I'm not going to wade through 23 >> patches to find what you mean. > > Sorry for not being precise here. I meant arch_io_completion() added at [1]
At least some of the inlines you add there are way too large to be inline functions, imo. But consensus appears to be now to retain a per-arch ioreq.c anyway. Jan > [1] > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/patch/1602780274-29141-2-git-send-email-olekst...@gmail.com/ >
