From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [V8 PATCH 7/8] pvh dom0: add check for pvh in
	vioapic_range
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:00:49 -0700
Message-ID: <20140404180049.77637164@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1395452357-1598-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1395452357-1598-8-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<53300A4102000078000013D1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<533ACFDD.8010504@eu.citrix.com>
	<533AF2BB0200007800004407@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>) id 1WWEyi-0001KK-Br
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 01:01:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <533AF2BB0200007800004407@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, tim@xen.org, eddie.dong@intel.com, keir.xen@gmail.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:09:15 +0100
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 01.04.14 at 16:40, <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > On 03/24/2014 09:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 22.03.14 at 02:39, <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> >>> @@ -238,8 +238,13 @@ static int vioapic_write(
> >>>
> >>>   static int vioapic_range(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr)
> >>>   {
> >>> -    struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain);
> >>> +    struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic;
> >>> +
> >>> +    /* pvh uses event channel callback */
> >>> +    if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) )
> >>> +        return 0;
> >>>
> >>> +    vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain);
> >>
> >> I can see why the extra check is needed, but I can't see why you
> >> convert the initializer to an assignment: Afaict domain_vioapic()
> >> is safe even if d->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic == NULL.
> > 
> > Or better yet, just make it something like:
> > 
> > return vioapic && ((addr >= [...original range check]))
> > 
> > That way we don't have to have a PVH-specific hook at all.  If a
> > domain doesn't have a vioapic for any reason, return 0.
> 
> No, vioapic isn't going to be NULL for PVH:
> 
> #define domain_vioapic(d)
> (&(d)->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic->hvm_hw_vioapic)

No, viopaic is NULL for PVH, hence the patch. So, can prob just check
for the ptr like George suggests and remove the pvh check.

thanks
mukesh