From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvmtool 01/21] ioport: Remove ioport__setup_arch()
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:01:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <861fd8a5-240e-3439-877b-28ba3490ebb4@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210222102333.2f1cb9e2@slackpad.fritz.box>
Hi Andre,
On 2/22/21 10:23 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:46:47 +0000
> Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:32:01 +0000
>> Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 2/11/21 5:16 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:44:59 +0000
>>>> Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/10/20 2:28 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>>>> Since x86 had a special need for registering tons of special I/O ports,
>>>>>> we had an ioport__setup_arch() callback, to allow each architecture
>>>>>> to do the same. As it turns out no one uses it beside x86, so we remove
>>>>>> that unnecessary abstraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The generic function was registered via a device_base_init() call, so
>>>>>> we just do the same for the x86 specific function only, and can remove
>>>>>> the unneeded ioport__setup_arch().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arm/ioport.c | 5 -----
>>>>>> include/kvm/ioport.h | 1 -
>>>>>> ioport.c | 28 ----------------------------
>>>>>> mips/kvm.c | 5 -----
>>>>>> powerpc/ioport.c | 6 ------
>>>>>> x86/ioport.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>> 6 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arm/ioport.c b/arm/ioport.c
>>>>>> index 2f0feb9a..24092c9d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arm/ioport.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arm/ioport.c
>>>>>> @@ -1,11 +1,6 @@
>>>>>> #include "kvm/ioport.h"
>>>>>> #include "kvm/irq.h"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>> -}
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> *irq = irq__alloc_line();
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kvm/ioport.h b/include/kvm/ioport.h
>>>>>> index 039633f7..d0213541 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/kvm/ioport.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/kvm/ioport.h
>>>>>> @@ -35,7 +35,6 @@ struct ioport_operations {
>>>>>> enum irq_type));
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>>>> void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int __must_check ioport__register(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port, struct ioport_operations *ops,
>>>>>> diff --git a/ioport.c b/ioport.c
>>>>>> index 844a832d..667e8386 100644
>>>>>> --- a/ioport.c
>>>>>> +++ b/ioport.c
>>>>>> @@ -158,21 +158,6 @@ int ioport__unregister(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port)
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -static void ioport__unregister_all(void)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> - struct ioport *entry;
>>>>>> - struct rb_node *rb;
>>>>>> - struct rb_int_node *rb_node;
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - rb = rb_first(&ioport_tree);
>>>>>> - while (rb) {
>>>>>> - rb_node = rb_int(rb);
>>>>>> - entry = ioport_node(rb_node);
>>>>>> - ioport_unregister(&ioport_tree, entry);
>>>>>> - rb = rb_first(&ioport_tree);
>>>>>> - }
>>>>>> -}
>>>>> I get the impression this is a rebasing artifact. The commit message doesn't
>>>>> mention anything about removing ioport__exit() -> ioport__unregister_all(), and as
>>>>> far as I can tell it's still needed because there are places other than
>>>>> ioport__setup_arch() from where ioport__register() is called.
>>>> I agree that the commit message is a bit thin on this fact, but the
>>>> functionality of ioport__unregister_all() is now in
>>>> x86/ioport.c:ioport__remove_arch(). I think removing ioport__init()
>>>> without removing ioport__exit() as well would look very weird, if not
>>>> hackish.
>>> Not necessarily. ioport__unregister_all() removes the ioports added by
>>> x86/ioport.c::ioport__setup_arch(), *plus* ioports added by different devices,
>>> like serial, rtc, virtio-pci and vfio-pci (which are used by arm/arm64).
>> Right, indeed. Not that it really matters, since we are about to exit
>> anyway, but it looks indeed I need to move this to a generic teardown
>> method, or actually just keep that part here in this file.
>>
>> Will give this a try.
> Well, now having a closer look I needed to remove this from here,
> because this whole file will go away.
> To keep the current functionality, we would need to add it to mmio.c,
> and interestingly we don't do any kind of similar cleanup there for the
> MMIO regions (probably this is kvmtool exiting anyway, see above).
This is a very good point. If the MMIO emulation doesn't unregister each MMIO
region before exiting (and has never done that since it was implemented), then I
don't think there's a reason that we should add it now. After all, kvmtool will
terminate after calling dev_base_exit destructors, which will take care of
deallocating the entire process memory.
Thanks,
Alex
>
> I will see if I can introduce it there, for good measure.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
>
>
>> Thanks!
>> Andre
>>
>>>> I can amend the commit message to mention this, or is there anything
>>>> else I missed?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andre
>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> static const char *to_direction(int direction)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> if (direction == KVM_EXIT_IO_IN)
>>>>>> @@ -220,16 +205,3 @@ out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return !kvm->cfg.ioport_debug;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -int ioport__init(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> - return ioport__setup_arch(kvm);
>>>>>> -}
>>>>>> -dev_base_init(ioport__init);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -int ioport__exit(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> - ioport__unregister_all();
>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>> -}
>>>>>> -dev_base_exit(ioport__exit);
>>>>>> diff --git a/mips/kvm.c b/mips/kvm.c
>>>>>> index 26355930..e110e5d5 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mips/kvm.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mips/kvm.c
>>>>>> @@ -100,11 +100,6 @@ void kvm__irq_trigger(struct kvm *kvm, int irq)
>>>>>> die_perror("KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl");
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>> -}
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> bool kvm__arch_cpu_supports_vm(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return true;
>>>>>> diff --git a/powerpc/ioport.c b/powerpc/ioport.c
>>>>>> index 0c188b61..a5cff4ee 100644
>>>>>> --- a/powerpc/ioport.c
>>>>>> +++ b/powerpc/ioport.c
>>>>>> @@ -12,12 +12,6 @@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> - /* PPC has no legacy ioports to set up */
>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>> -}
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> diff --git a/x86/ioport.c b/x86/ioport.c
>>>>>> index 7ad7b8f3..8c5c7699 100644
>>>>>> --- a/x86/ioport.c
>>>>>> +++ b/x86/ioport.c
>>>>>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> +static int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int r;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -150,3 +150,26 @@ int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +dev_base_init(ioport__setup_arch);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static int ioport__remove_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x510);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x402);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x03D5);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x03D4);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0378);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0278);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00F0);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00ED);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, IOPORT_DBG);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00C0);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00A0);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0092);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0040);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0020);
>>>>>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0000);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +dev_base_exit(ioport__remove_arch);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-22 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-10 14:28 [PATCH kvmtool 00/21] Unify I/O port and MMIO trap handling Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 01/21] ioport: Remove ioport__setup_arch() Andre Przywara
2021-02-10 17:44 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-11 17:16 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-11 17:32 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-17 16:46 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-22 10:23 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-22 15:01 ` Alexandru Elisei [this message]
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 02/21] hw/serial: Use device abstraction for FDT generator function Andre Przywara
2021-02-11 12:05 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-11 17:45 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 03/21] ioport: Retire .generate_fdt_node functionality Andre Przywara
2021-02-11 14:05 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-17 15:54 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-17 16:06 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 04/21] mmio: Extend handling to include ioport emulation Andre Przywara
2021-02-11 16:10 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-17 17:43 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-22 15:50 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 05/21] hw/i8042: Clean up data types Andre Przywara
2021-02-11 16:55 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-17 17:46 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 06/21] hw/i8042: Refactor trap handler Andre Przywara
2021-02-11 17:23 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 10:34 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-18 11:17 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 11:48 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-22 16:03 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 07/21] hw/i8042: Switch to new trap handlers Andre Przywara
2021-02-12 10:41 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 12:09 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-22 16:19 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 08/21] x86/ioport: Refactor " Andre Przywara
2021-02-12 11:14 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 09/21] x86/ioport: Switch to new " Andre Przywara
2021-02-12 11:27 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 14:05 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 10/21] hw/rtc: Refactor " Andre Przywara
2021-02-12 11:56 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 11/21] hw/rtc: Switch to new trap handler Andre Przywara
2021-02-12 12:02 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:28 ` [PATCH kvmtool 12/21] hw/vesa: Switch trap handling to use MMIO handler Andre Przywara
2021-02-12 17:50 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 13/21] hw/serial: Refactor trap handler Andre Przywara
2021-02-16 14:22 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 14:41 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-22 17:40 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-24 14:54 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 14/21] hw/serial: Switch to new trap handlers Andre Przywara
2021-02-16 14:31 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 15/21] vfio: Refactor ioport trap handler Andre Przywara
2021-02-16 14:47 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 15:51 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 16/21] vfio: Switch to new ioport trap handlers Andre Przywara
2021-02-16 14:52 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 17/21] virtio: Switch trap handling to use MMIO handler Andre Przywara
2021-02-16 17:03 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 16:13 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 18/21] pci: " Andre Przywara
2021-02-17 15:14 ` Alexandru Elisei
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 19/21] Remove ioport specific routines Andre Przywara
2021-02-17 15:49 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-17 16:11 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 16:34 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 20/21] hw/serial: ARM/arm64: Use MMIO at higher addresses Andre Przywara
2021-02-17 16:48 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 12:18 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 16:38 ` Andre Przywara
2020-12-10 14:29 ` [PATCH kvmtool 21/21] hw/rtc: " Andre Przywara
2021-02-18 13:33 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-02-18 16:41 ` Andre Przywara
2021-02-10 17:44 ` [PATCH kvmtool 00/21] Unify I/O port and MMIO trap handling Alexandru Elisei
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=861fd8a5-240e-3439-877b-28ba3490ebb4@arm.com \
--to=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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).