From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E642CC83003 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B824A21775 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=xen.org header.i=@xen.org header.b="G2fhviyL" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B824A21775 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xen.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jTmfp-0007w9-KH; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:49 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jTmfn-0007vs-Iu for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:47 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 843a31e6-8a1c-11ea-b9cf-bc764e2007e4 Received: from mail.xenproject.org (unknown [104.130.215.37]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 843a31e6-8a1c-11ea-b9cf-bc764e2007e4; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7+F1l2FcWfs/7ZNEI5erNsE7mfBro9fYkLosgj4p+jg=; b=G2fhviyLBXq7IGGaD1ga1JEv9I zWO2XJbDl+3C/RBf2c96nLCTgCb1lr1U+UlIDRsjzzicD5j/U0Up2nfYE+gaHYEnzNGPsnwC9WY/I nJunPrpd/yvumE+orsHsLixE7O4pPKgo/H0TVzgXlS2rz4ip5jcmlRBW9wuTi9quMPx8=; Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jTmfj-0001kn-Vs; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:43 +0000 Received: from [54.239.6.186] (helo=a483e7b01a66.ant.amazon.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jTmfj-0002tJ-M2; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86: adjustments to guest handle treatment To: Jan Beulich References: <9d4b738a-4487-6bfc-3076-597d074c7b47@suse.com> <9108f918-ee44-0740-48e0-7e0b0c761e1b@xen.org> <2025316a-de36-91d9-521c-547af668f919@suse.com> From: Julien Grall Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:22:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2025316a-de36-91d9-521c-547af668f919@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper , Tim Deegan , George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" Hi, On 22/04/2020 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 22.04.2020 10:17, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 21/04/2020 10:13, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> First of all avoid excessive conversions. copy_{from,to}_guest(), for >>> example, work fine with all of XEN_GUEST_HANDLE{,_64,_PARAM}(). >>> >>> Further >>> - do_physdev_op_compat() didn't use the param form for its parameter, >>> - {hap,shadow}_track_dirty_vram() wrongly used the param form, >>> - compat processor Px logic failed to check compatibility of native and >>>    compat structures not further converted. >>> >>> As this eliminates all users of guest_handle_from_param() and as there's >>> no real need to allow for conversions in both directions, drop the >>> macros as well. >> >> I was kind of expecting both guest_handle_from_param() and >> guest_handle_to_param() to be dropped together. May I ask why >> you still need guest_handle_to_param()? > > There are three (iirc) uses left which I don't really see how > to sensibly replace. Take a look at the different callers of > x86's vcpumask_to_pcpumask(), for example. Oh, const_guest_handle_from_ptr() is returning a GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM. This is a bit odd but fair enough. > >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/acpi.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/acpi.h >>> @@ -184,8 +184,8 @@ static inline unsigned int acpi_get_csub >>>   static inline void acpi_set_csubstate_limit(unsigned int new_limit) { return; } >>>   #endif >>>   -#ifdef XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM >>> -int acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 acpi_id, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(uint32)); >>> +#ifdef XEN_GUEST_HANDLE >>> +int acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 acpi_id, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint32)); >>>   #endif >> >> Do we really need to keep the #ifdef here? > > I think so, yes, or else the original one wouldn't have been > needed either. (Consider the header getting included without > any of the public headers having got included first.) Dropping > (if it was possible) this would be an orthogonal change imo. Fair point. Cheers, -- Julien Grall