On 07.12.20 13:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
Hi Jan
On 30.11.2020 11:31, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
@@ -36,6 +36,11 @@
#include <public/hvm/ioreq.h>
#include <public/hvm/params.h>
+bool ioreq_complete_mmio(void)
+{
+ return handle_mmio();
+}
As indicated before I don't like out-of-line functions like this
one; I think a #define would be quite fine here, but Paul as the
maintainer thinks differently. So be it. However, shouldn't this
function be named arch_ioreq_complete_mmio() according to the
new naming model, and then ...
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/ioreq.h
@@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ unsigned int hvm_broadcast_ioreq(ioreq_t *p, bool buffered);
void hvm_ioreq_init(struct domain *d);
+bool ioreq_complete_mmio(void);
... get declared next to the other arch_*() hooks? With this
sounds reasonable, will update
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Thank you
--
Regards,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko
