On 21.04.2021 10:07, Rahul Singh wrote: > Hi Jan, > >> On 20 Apr 2021, at 4:36 pm, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 20.04.2021 15:45, Rahul Singh wrote: >>>> On 19 Apr 2021, at 1:33 pm, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 19.04.2021 13:54, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> For the time being, I think move this code in x86 is a lot better than >>>>> #ifdef or keep the code in common code. >>>> >>>> Well, I would perhaps agree if it ended up being #ifdef CONFIG_X86. >>>> I would perhaps not agree if there was a new CONFIG_* which other >>>> (future) arch-es could select if desired. >>> >>> I agree with Julien moving the code to x86 file as currently it is >>> referenced only in x86 code >>> and as of now we are not sure how other architecture will implement the >>> Interrupt remapping >>> (via IOMMU or any other means). >>> >>> Let me know if you are ok with moving the code to x86. >> >> I can't answer this with "yes" or "no" without knowing what the alternative >> would be. As said, if the alternative is CONFIG_X86 #ifdef-ary, then yes. >> If a separate CONFIG_* gets introduced (and selected by X86), then a >> separate file (getting built only when that new setting is y) would seem >> better to me. > > I just made a quick patch. Please let me know if below patch is ok. I move > the definition to "passthrough/x86/iommu.c” file.
This patch on its own looks okay, but assumes you've already taken the decision that no proper new CONFIG_* would want introducing. That decision, however, touches (aiui) more than just this one hook. Jan
