From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH for Xen 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3 for domU Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:56:33 +0000 Message-ID: <54552CE1.4070205@linaro.org> References: <1414695092-20761-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <54535E240200007800043DAC@mail.emea.novell.com> <54537126.5010401@linaro.org> <54539EA50200007800043EAE@mail.emea.novell.com> <54539458.3010901@linaro.org> <5453B5060200007800043F9B@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Xkdqn-0000oJ-5F for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:56:37 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q5so3616050wiv.10 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:56:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5453B5060200007800043F9B@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: ian.campbell@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, Vijaya Kumar K , Ian Jackson , stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Daniel De Graaf List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Jan, On 31/10/2014 15:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.10.14 at 14:53, wrote: >> On 10/31/2014 01:37 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 31.10.14 at 12:23, wrote: >>>> On 31/10/2014 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h >>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h >>>>>> @@ -68,6 +68,19 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain { >>>>>> typedef struct xen_domctl_createdomain xen_domctl_createdomain_t; >>>>>> DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domctl_createdomain_t); >>>>>> >>>>>> +#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__) >>>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_DEFAULT 0 >>>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_V2 1 >>>>>> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_V3 2 >>>>>> +/* XEN_DOMCTL_configure_domain */ >>>>>> +struct xen_domctl_configuredomain { >>>>> >>>>> The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the >>>>> gic_version field (with a dummy field in the #else case to be C89 >>>>> compatible, e.g. a zero width unnamed bitfield) and the >>>>> corresponding #define-s above, ... >>>> >>>> It's a bit like xen_domctl_setvcpuextstate which is defined only for x86 >>>> while the name seem pretty common. >>> >>> That's a particularly bad example to compare with, as this is about >>> CPU registers having got added after the ABI was defined. This >>> (hopefully) shouldn't have many similar cases on other architectures. >>> Plus, doing things in an odd way just because there's an odd >>> precedent is always suspicious to me. >>> >>>> I think we have to stay consistent in this header and not defining >>>> DOMCTL which is not used for a specific architecture. >>> >>> Yes, I always advocate for consistency - provided what is there is >>> a reasonable reference and was done properly. >> >> Would renaming the structure name with "xen_arm_domctl_configuredomain" >> would be sufficient for you? > > Maybe (better xen_domctl_arm_configure_domain then), if you are > reasonably certain this can't become useful for another arch. IIRC, DOMCTL can be modify whenever we want. I doubt that x86 will use it, so if we plan to add a new architecture which require this DOMCTL then we could rename the structure at that time. -- Julien Grall