Re: [XEN][PATCH v2 2/4] x86: hvm: compat: introduce is_hcall_compat() helper

[Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>]

On 2025-11-19 14:30, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@epam.com>
> 
> Introduce is_hcall_compat() helper and use it instead of direct access to
> struct vcpu->hcall_compat field in preparation for making HVM COMPAT code
> optional. The vcpu->hcall_compat field is under CONFIG_COMPAT ifdefs
> already.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@epam.com>

> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/sched.h b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> index 02bdc256ce37..ed6fdeeda9f9 100644
> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> @@ -311,6 +311,15 @@ struct vcpu
>   #endif
>   };
>   
> +static inline bool is_hcall_compat(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> +    return current->hcall_compat;
> +#else
> +    return false;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT */
> +}
> +

is_hcall_compat() matches the hcall_compat field, so I am okay with this.

Reviewed-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>

However, is_compat_hcall() might be a slightly better name for the 
helper.  For me at least, I think of these as "compat hypercalls", so 
that ordering reads a little more naturally for me.  It's not a big 
deal, but I figured I'd mention it in case others have an opinion.

Thanks,
Jason