From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 13/19] xen/iommu: arm: Wire iommu DOMCTL for
	ARM
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:05:27 +0100
Message-ID: <53A03D17.7070406@linaro.org>
References: <1402935486-29136-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1402935486-29136-14-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<53A01744020000780001AE18@mail.emea.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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1Wwt4t-0006dv-KW
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:05:31 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n15so5797028wiw.16
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53A01744020000780001AE18@mail.emea.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, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, tim@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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