On 07.07.2021 03:02, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> Current unit8_t for pirq argument in this interface is too restrictive
> causing failures on modern hardware with lots of GSIs. That extends down to
> XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission ABI structure where it needs to be fixed up
> as well. Internal Xen structures appear to be fine. Existing users of
> the interface in tree (libxl, ocaml and python bindings) are already using
> int for pirq representation that should be wide enough.
>
> Domctl interface version is needed to be bumped with this change but that
> was already done by 918b8842a8 ("arm64: Change type of hsr, cpsr, spsr_el1
> to uint64_t") in this release cycle.
Let's hope it's not going to get reverted for having broken the tools
build in multiple ways.
> --- a/tools/include/xenctrl.h
> +++ b/tools/include/xenctrl.h
> @@ -1385,7 +1385,7 @@ int xc_domain_ioport_permission(xc_interface *xch,
>
> int xc_domain_irq_permission(xc_interface *xch,
> uint32_t domid,
> - uint8_t pirq,
> + uint32_t pirq,
> uint8_t allow_access);
Take the opportunity and also change "allow_access" to bool? Or is
use of bool prohibited in external interfaces?
> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ struct xen_domctl_setdebugging {
>
> /* XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission */
> struct xen_domctl_irq_permission {
> - uint8_t pirq;
> + uint32_t pirq;
> uint8_t allow_access; /* flag to specify enable/disable of IRQ access
> */
> };
Please can you make the now added padding explicit, like we strive
to do with any new additions / extensions? With at least this aspect
taken care of
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
