On 08.03.2022 12:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:06:09PM +0000, Jane Malalane wrote:
>> @@ -685,13 +687,31 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
>> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - if ( config->arch.misc_flags & ~XEN_X86_MSR_RELAXED )
>> + if ( config->arch.misc_flags & ~(XEN_X86_MSR_RELAXED |
>> + XEN_X86_ASSISTED_XAPIC |
>> + XEN_X86_ASSISTED_X2APIC) )
>> {
>> dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Invalid arch misc flags %#x\n",
>> config->arch.misc_flags);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + if ( (assisted_xapic || assisted_x2apic) && !hvm )
>> + {
>> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO,
>> + "Interrupt Controller Virtualization not supported for
>> PV\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if ( (assisted_xapic && !assisted_xapic_available) ||
>> + (assisted_x2apic && !assisted_x2apic_available) )
>> + {
>> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO,
>> + "Hardware assisted x%sAPIC requested but not available\n",
>> + assisted_xapic && !assisted_xapic_available ? "" : "2");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> I think for those two you could return -ENODEV if others agree.
If by "two" you mean the xAPIC and x2APIC aspects here (and not e.g. this
and the earlier if()), then I agree. I'm always in favor of using distinct
error codes when possible and at least halfway sensible.
Jan
