From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [V8 PATCH 7/8] pvh dom0: add check for pvh in
	vioapic_range
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 15:40:29 +0100
Message-ID: <533ACFDD.8010504@eu.citrix.com>
References: <1395452357-1598-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1395452357-1598-8-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<53300A4102000078000013D1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
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 <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>) id 1WUzre-00040c-AA
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:40:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <53300A4102000078000013D1@nat28.tlf.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>, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, keir.xen@gmail.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, tim@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 03/24/2014 09:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.03.14 at 02:39, <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
>> @@ -238,8 +238,13 @@ static int vioapic_write(
>>
>>   static int vioapic_range(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr)
>>   {
>> -    struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain);
>> +    struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic;
>> +
>> +    /* pvh uses event channel callback */
>> +    if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) )
>> +        return 0;
>>
>> +    vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain);
>
> I can see why the extra check is needed, but I can't see why you
> convert the initializer to an assignment: Afaict domain_vioapic() is
> safe even if d->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic == NULL.

Or better yet, just make it something like:

return vioapic && ((addr >= [...original range check]))

That way we don't have to have a PVH-specific hook at all.  If a domain 
doesn't have a vioapic for any reason, return 0.

  -George