From: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Rahul Singh <Rahul.Singh@arm.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"Bertrand Marquis" <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>,
"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
"George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
"Ian Jackson" <iwj@xenproject.org>,
"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
"Paul Durrant" <paul@xen.org>,
"Volodymyr Babchuk" <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>,
"Daniel De Graaf" <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen/pci: Refactor PCI MSI interrupts related code
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:54:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d5539e3-32e3-8275-f695-351eda49cb29@xen.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a365ffbd-5b88-85c3-9e68-46a9a730a6fa@suse.com>
On 19/04/2021 12:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.2021 10:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:16:52AM +0000, Rahul Singh wrote:
>>> Thanks you everyone for reviewing the code. I will summarise what I have understood from all the comments
>>> and what I will be doing for the next version of the patch. Please let me know your view on this.
>>>
>>> 1. Create a separate non-arch specific file "msi-intercept.c" for the below newly introduced function and
>>> compile that file if CONFIG_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT is enabled.CONFIG_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT will be
>>> enabled for x86 by default.
>
> Everything up to here wants to be separate from ...
>
>>> Also Mention in the commit message that these function will be needed for Xen to
>>> support MSI interrupt within XEN.
>>>
>>> pdev_msi_initi(..)
>>> pdev_msi_deiniti(..)
>
> ... this (if all of these functions really are needed beyond the
> purpose of intercepting MSI accesses).
>
>> I would drop the last 'i' from both function names above, as we use
>> init/deinit in the rest of the code base.
>
> +1
>
>>> pdev_dump_msi(..),
>>> pdev_msix_assign(..)
>>>
>>> 2. Create separate patch for iommu_update_ire_from_msi() related code. There are two suggestion please help me which one to choose.
>>>
>>> - Move the iommu_update_ire_from_msi() function to asm-x86/iommu.h and also move the hook from iommu_ops under CONFIG_X86.
>>
>> I would go for this one.
>
> Strictly speaking this isn't x86-specific and hence shouldn't move there.
> It merely depends on whether full MSI support is wanted by an arch.
As I pointed out before, Arm doesn't use the IOMMU to setup the MSIs. So
the naming and using an IOMMU callback is definitely wrong for Arm.
> I'd
> therefore guard the declaration by an #ifdef (if needed at all - have a
> declaration without implementation isn't really that problematic). For
> the definition question is going to be whether you introduce another new
> file for the pdev_*() functions above. If not, #ifdef may again be better
> than moving to an x86-specific file.
AFAIK, this helper is only called by x86 specific code and it will not
be used as-is by Arm.
I can't tell for other arch (e.g RISCv, PowerPC). However... we can take
the decision to move the code back to common back when it is necessary.
For the time being, I think move this code in x86 is a lot better than
#ifdef or keep the code in common code.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-19 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-09 16:00 [PATCH v2] xen/pci: Refactor PCI MSI interrupts related code Rahul Singh
2021-04-12 10:49 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-12 11:28 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-12 18:26 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-12 16:28 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-13 17:12 ` Julien Grall
2021-04-14 7:08 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-14 8:28 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-14 8:47 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-14 8:28 ` Julien Grall
2021-04-14 8:05 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-14 8:49 ` Julien Grall
2021-04-15 13:26 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-15 13:31 ` Julien Grall
2021-04-19 7:16 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-19 8:40 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-19 11:16 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-19 11:54 ` Julien Grall [this message]
2021-04-19 12:33 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 13:45 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-20 15:36 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-21 8:07 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-21 8:16 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-21 9:15 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-21 9:33 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-21 11:55 ` Rahul Singh
2021-04-21 9:32 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-21 9:01 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0d5539e3-32e3-8275-f695-351eda49cb29@xen.org \
--to=julien@xen.org \
--cc=Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com \
--cc=Rahul.Singh@arm.com \
--cc=Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=paul@xen.org \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).