From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/21] xen/passthrough: iommu: Split
 generic IOMMU code
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:45:40 +0100
Message-ID: <53569CB4.4010601@linaro.org>
References: <1398172475-27873-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1398172475-27873-13-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<53568F58020000780000ADBF@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<53568380.7060400@linaro.org>
	<5356B60F020000780000AFA9@nat28.tlf.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.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1WcdpH-0007z1-MR
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:45:45 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c13so4889382eek.10
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5356B60F020000780000AFA9@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>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>, tim@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 04/22/2014 05:33 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.04.14 at 16:58, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> +void __hwdom_init arch_iommu_check_hwdom_reqs(struct domain *d)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if ( !iommu_enabled )
>>>> +        panic("Presently, iommu must be enabled for pvh dom0\n");
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Message text (containing PVH) and function name (not containing
>>> PVH) don't fit together, nor does the conditional really establish a
>>> connection.
>>
>> Do you prefer a comment, or an explicit check to is_pvh_domain(d)?
> 
> That depends on where it would go: If the caller checks for PVH, then
> the function name should change. If the caller doesn't, then I don't
> see how you'd avoid getting here for non-PVH.

The caller will go there when the DOM0 is auto-translated (i.e PVH as
dom0 can't be an HVM).

I can remove PVH from the log, but for the user it's not accurate.

-- 
Julien Grall