Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/6] iommu: tidy up iommu_us_hap_pt() and need_iommu_pt_sync() macros

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 30.07.2019 15:44, Paul Durrant wrote:
> Thes macros really ought to live in the common xen/iommu.h header rather
> then being distributed amongst architecture specific iommu headers and
> xen/sched.h. This patch moves them there.
> 
> NOTE: Disabling 'sharept' in the command line iommu options should really
>        be hard error on ARM (as opposed to just being ignored), so avoid
>        parsing that option if CONFIG_ARM is set.

Agreed. At that point the latest it would perhaps be good to have
Arm have
#define iommu_hap_pt_share true

> --- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
> @@ -268,6 +268,13 @@ struct domain_iommu {
>   #define iommu_set_feature(d, f)   set_bit(f, dom_iommu(d)->features)
>   #define iommu_clear_feature(d, f) clear_bit(f, dom_iommu(d)->features)
>   
> +/* Are we using the domain P2M table as its IOMMU pagetable? */
> +#define iommu_use_hap_pt(d) \
> +    (hap_enabled(d) && is_iommu_enabled(d) && iommu_hap_pt_share)

Does this build for Arm, seeing that there's no hap_enabled()
definition there? Or have I missed its addition earlier in this
series?

> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> @@ -963,12 +963,6 @@ static inline bool is_hwdom_pinned_vcpu(const struct vcpu *v)
>               cpumask_weight(v->cpu_hard_affinity) == 1);
>   }
>   
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
> -#define need_iommu_pt_sync(d) (dom_iommu(d)->need_sync)
> -#else
> -#define need_iommu_pt_sync(d) false
> -#endif

The "#else" part of this gets lost - is this intentional, i.e.
are there no references left that could be a problem without
HAS_PASSTHROUGH?

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel