From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RFC 1/6] x86/PCI: add config space write
 abstract intercept logic
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:21:17 +0100
Message-ID: <5589250D0200007800087EDB@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <558839ED02000078000879FE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55883BD10200007800087A20@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<20150622193147.GC11441@l.oracle.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 <JBeulich@suse.com>) id 1Z7IWG-0000Ld-ES
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:21:20 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20150622193147.GC11441@l.oracle.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.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 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.

Jan