On 2024/5/16 21:49, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 16.05.2024 11:52, Jiqian Chen wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c >> @@ -76,6 +76,11 @@ long hvm_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) >> arg) >> case PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq: >> break; >> >> + case PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi: >> + if ( !is_hardware_domain(currd) ) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + break; >> + >> case PHYSDEVOP_eoi: >> case PHYSDEVOP_irq_status_query: >> case PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq: > > Below here we have a hardware-domain-only block already. Any reason not > to add to there? Yes, that uses -ENOSYS. Imo that wants changing anyway, > but even without that to me it would seem more consistent overall to have > the new case simply added there. Ah yes, I remembered you suggest me to use EOPNOTSUPP in v4, if change to ENOSYS is also fine, I will move to below in next version.
> > Just to double check: Is there a respective Linux patch already (if so, > cross-linking the patches may be helpful)? Yes, my corresponding kernel patch: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240515065011.13797-1-jiqian.c...@amd.com/T/#mc56b111562d7c67886da905e306f12b3ef8076b4 Do you mean I need to add this link into the commit message once the kernel patch is accepted? > Or does PVH Linux invoke the sub-op already anyway, just that so far it > fails? > > Jan -- Best regards, Jiqian Chen.
