From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 17/29] xen/x86: allow disabling the
	emulated PIC
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:01:15 +0200
Message-ID: <560561BB.2030808@citrix.com>
References: <1441368548-43465-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1441368548-43465-18-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<5600319A02000078000A4183@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=703afe70e=roger.pau@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZfUWW-0001ay-Ck
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:02:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5600319A02000078000A4183@prv-mh.provo.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 21/09/15 a les 16.34, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>> On 04.09.15 at 14:08, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -425,6 +431,9 @@ void vpic_reset(struct domain *d)
>>  
>>  void vpic_init(struct domain *d)
>>  {
>> +    if ( !has_vpic(d) )
>> +        return;
> 
> vpic_reset() above this function as well as functions further down
> in the source file aren't static, yet you aren't adding guards to them.
> I think here and in other similar patches you should, in the commit
> message, give reasons for any one not obviously being excluded
> (e.g. because used only for handling intercepts which aren't getting
> enabled) from the set needing such.

I've gone through the patches and added appropriate guards or asserts to
the public functions, depending on whether we are expecting them to be
called or not. I've also fixed all the _load functions to return ENODEV
if the device has been disabled (_save functions are just noops and
return 0).

Roger.