From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RFC 1/6] x86/PCI: add config space write
	abstract intercept logic
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:06:49 -0400
Message-ID: <0574A5C5-DC67-4C8B-982E-5D8CD75A5633@oracle.com>
References: <558839ED02000078000879FE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55883BD10200007800087A20@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<20150622193147.GC11441@l.oracle.com>
	<5589250D0200007800087EDB@mail.emea.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.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>) id 1Z7M2g-0005Wu-3G
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:07:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5589250D0200007800087EDB@mail.emea.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: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On June 23, 2015 3:21:17 AM EDT, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22.06.15 at 21:31, <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -1804,8 +1804,12 @@ static bool_t pci_cfg_ok(struct domain *
>>>              start |= CF8_ADDR_HI(currd->arch.pci_cf8);
>>>      }
>>>  
>>> -    return !xsm_pci_config_permission(XSM_HOOK, currd, machine_bdf,
>>> -                                      start, start + size - 1,
>write);
>>> +    if ( xsm_pci_config_permission(XSM_HOOK, currd, machine_bdf,
>>> +                                   start, start + size - 1,
>!!write) != 0 )
>>> +         return 0;
>>> +
>>> +    return !write ||
>>> +           pci_conf_write_intercept(0, machine_bdf, start, size,
>write) >= 0;
>> 
>> Won't the 'write' parameter cause an compiler error as it expects an 
>> pointer?
>
>No, certainly not - !write means the same as write != NULL, but is
>(imo) easier to read.

I meant the

 pci_conf_write_intercept(...,write).

The prototype for the last parameter is for *uint32?

>
>Jan