On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Luca Fancellu wrote: > > On 14 Apr 2021, at 14:45, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Luca, > > > > On 14/04/2021 12:29, Luca Fancellu wrote: > >>> On 14 Apr 2021, at 12:16, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Luca, > >>> > >>> On 14/04/2021 10:14, Luca Fancellu wrote: > >>>> Among the common and arm codebase there are few cases where > >>>> the hardware_domain variable is checked to see if the current > >>>> domain is equal to the hardware_domain, change this cases to > >>>> use is_hardware_domain() function instead. > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fance...@arm.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> v4 changes: > >>>> - removed unneeded check for domain NULL from is_hardware_domain > >>>> introduced in v3 > >>> > >>> After this change, this patch is only avoid to open-code > >>> is_hardware_domain(). Although, it adds an extra speculation barrier. > >>> > >>> I am not against the change, however I think the commit message needs to > >>> updated to match what the patch is doing. > >>> > >>> Can you propose a new commit message? > >> Hi Julien, > >> Yes I agree, what about: > >> xen/arm: Reinforce use of is_hardware_domain > >> Among the common and arm codebase there are few cases where > > > > I would drop 'common' because you are only modifying the arm codebase. > > > >> the hardware_domain variable is checked to see if the current > >> domain is equal to the hardware_domain, change this cases to > >> use is_hardware_domain() function instead. > > > > > >> In the eventuality that hardware_domain is NULL, is_hardware_domain > >> will return false because an analysis of the common and arm codebase > >> shows that is_hardware_domain is called always with a non NULL > >> domain pointer. > > > > This paragraph seems to come out of the blue. I would drop it. > > > > How about: > > > > " > > There are a few places on Arm where we use pretty much an open-coded > > version of is_hardware_domain(). The main difference, is the helper will > > also block speculation (not yet implemented on Arm). > > > > The existing users are not in hot path, so blocking speculation would not > > hurt when it is implemented. So remove the open-coded version within the > > arm codebase. > > " > > > > If you are happy with the commit message, I will commit it the series > > tomorrow (to give an opportunity to Stefano to review). > > > > Hi Julien, > > Yes your version is much better, thank you very much!
It looks great, thanks for your work on this!
