From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/29] xen/x86: add bitmap of enabled
	emulated devices
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:46:31 +0100
Message-ID: <56029F27.7090101@citrix.com>
References: <1441368548-43465-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1441368548-43465-12-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<55F95C4902000078000A33BB@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<56029E4F.80509@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 <amc96@hermes.cam.ac.uk>) id 1ZejRU-0002Qc-5B
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:46:36 +0000
In-Reply-To: <56029E4F.80509@citrix.com>
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: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org



On 23/09/15 13:42, Roger Pau Monn=E9 wrote:
> El 16/09/15 a les 12.10, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>>> On 04.09.15 at 14:08, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
>>> @@ -387,8 +387,21 @@ struct arch_domain
>>>       bool_t mem_access_emulate_enabled;
>>>   =

>>>       struct monitor_write_data *event_write_data;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Emulated devices enabled bitmap. */
>>> +    uint32_t emulation_flags;
>>>   } __cacheline_aligned;
>>>   =

>>> +#define has_vlapic(d)       ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_L=
APIC)
>>> +#define has_vhpet(d)        ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_H=
PET)
>>> +#define has_vpmtimer(d)     ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_P=
MTIMER)
>>> +#define has_vrtc(d)         ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_R=
TC)
>>> +#define has_vioapic(d)      ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_I=
OAPIC)
>>> +#define has_vpic(d)         ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_P=
IC)
>>> +#define has_vpmu(d)         ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_P=
MU)
>>> +#define has_vvga(d)         ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_V=
GA)
>>> +#define has_viommu(d)       ((d)->arch.emulation_flags & XEN_X86_EMU_I=
OMMU)
>> And btw, now that I saw a few uses of these - do they really all need
>> to be has_v*() instead of just has_*()? Together with the macros taking
>> a domain pointer it's quite obvious that talk is about virtual devices...
> IMHO, I prefer to have the "v" prefix, because that's how they are named
> inside of Xen, so it's more clear that we are actually disabling them,
> but I'm not going to fight for it.

I personally think it is clearer having the v in the name.

~Andrew