From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/21] xen/passthrough: iommu: Split
 generic IOMMU code
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:02:08 +0100
Message-ID: <5356AEA0.1030104@linaro.org>
References: <1398172475-27873-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1398172475-27873-13-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<53568F58020000780000ADBF@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<53568380.7060400@linaro.org>
	<5356B60F020000780000AFA9@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<53569CB4.4010601@linaro.org>
	<5356BBF7020000780000AFEF@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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1Wcf1I-0006CO-Dd
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:02:12 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e49so4922569eek.11
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5356BBF7020000780000AFEF@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: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>, tim@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 04/22/2014 05:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.04.14 at 18:45, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 04/22/2014 05:33 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 22.04.14 at 16:58, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>> +void __hwdom_init arch_iommu_check_hwdom_reqs(struct domain *d)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    if ( !iommu_enabled )
>>>>>> +        panic("Presently, iommu must be enabled for pvh dom0\n");
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> Message text (containing PVH) and function name (not containing
>>>>> PVH) don't fit together, nor does the conditional really establish a
>>>>> connection.
>>>>
>>>> Do you prefer a comment, or an explicit check to is_pvh_domain(d)?
>>>
>>> That depends on where it would go: If the caller checks for PVH, then
>>> the function name should change. If the caller doesn't, then I don't
>>> see how you'd avoid getting here for non-PVH.
>>
>> The caller will go there when the DOM0 is auto-translated (i.e PVH as
>> dom0 can't be an HVM).
>>
>> I can remove PVH from the log, but for the user it's not accurate.
> 
> In which case the function name should reflect this.

What about arch_iommu_check_autotranslate_hwdom_reqs?

-- 
Julien Grall