On 11/11/20 3:55 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 01:10:01PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >> On 11/11/20 2:31 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:50:22PM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> >>>> >>>> According to >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Linux_PVH__;!!GF_29dbcQIUBPA!nEHd6eivmqtdJxtrhO-3x2Mz9F50JsKUoV7WTEJd_D1N01DrBOJXzGW1QAqwshZ9AMxywbUhOA$ >>>> [wiki[.]xenproject[.]org]: >>>> >>>> Items not supported by PVH >>>> - PCI pass through (as of Xen 4.10) >>>> >>>> Allow running PCI remove code on ARM and do not assert for PVH domains. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> >>>> --- >>>> tools/libxl/Makefile | 4 ++++ >>>> tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 4 +++- >>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile >>>> index 241da7fff6f4..f3806aafcb4e 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/libxl/Makefile >>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile >>>> @@ -130,6 +130,10 @@ endif >>>> >>>> LIBXL_LIBS += -lyajl >>>> >>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM),y) >>>> +CFALGS += -DCONFIG_ARM >>>> +endif >>>> + >>>> LIBXL_OBJS = flexarray.o libxl.o libxl_create.o libxl_dm.o libxl_pci.o \ >>>> libxl_dom.o libxl_exec.o libxl_xshelp.o >>>> libxl_device.o \ >>>> libxl_internal.o libxl_utils.o libxl_uuid.o \ >>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c >>>> index bc5843b13701..b93cf976642b 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c >>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c >>>> @@ -1915,8 +1915,10 @@ static void do_pci_remove(libxl__egc *egc, uint32_t >>>> domid, >>>> goto out_fail; >>>> } >>>> } else { >>>> + /* PCI passthrough can also run on ARM PVH */ >>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM >>>> assert(type == LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV); >>>> - >>>> +#endif >>> I would just remove the assert now if this is to be used by Arm and >>> you don't need to fork the file for Arm. >> Sounds good, I will drop then >> >> But what would be the right explanation then? I mean why there was an ASSERT >> >> and now it is safe (for x86) to remove that? > An assert is just a safe belt, the expectation is that it's never hit > by actual code. Given that this path will now also be used by PVH > (even if only on Arm) I don't see the point in keeping the assert, and > making it conditional to != Arm seems worse than just dropping it.
Ok, so I can write in the patch description something like: "this path is now used by PVH, so the assert is no longer valid" Does it sound ok? > Thanks, Roger. Thank you, Oleksandr
