Re: [RFC 13/19] xen/iommu: arm: Wire iommu DOMCTL for ARM

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>]

Hi Jan,

On 06/17/2014 09:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.06.14 at 18:18, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
>> @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl(
>>      break;
>>  
>>      default:
>> -        ret = iommu_do_domctl(domctl, d, u_domctl);
>> +        ret = -ENOSYS;
>>          break;
>>      }
>>  
>> diff --git a/xen/common/domctl.c b/xen/common/domctl.c
>> index 5d3ac87..85866b7 100644
>> --- a/xen/common/domctl.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c
>> @@ -1028,6 +1028,10 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl)
>>  
>>      default:
>>          ret = arch_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl);
>> +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
>> +        if ( ret == -ENOSYS )
>> +            ret = iommu_do_domctl(op, d, u_domctl);
>> +#endif
>>          break;
>>      }
>>  
> 
> To be honest I'm not convinced of this approach. I'd prefer ARM's
> arch_do_domctl() to invoke iommu_do_domctl() just like x86's does.
> In particular I'm neither in favor of checking for specific error codes
> before chaining, nor do I think that - despite there being a number
> of such cases in the tree - ENOSYS is the right error value for not
> implemented sub-hypercalls (to me only top level hypercalls may
> produce this).

Ok. I will add the iommu_do_domctl call directh in arch_do_domctl.

Regards,


-- 
Julien Grall