On 31.10.2023 00:52, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> @@ -607,7 +607,8 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> {
> unsigned int max_vcpus;
> unsigned int flags_required = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap);
> - unsigned int flags_optional = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu |
> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu);
> + unsigned int flags_optional = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu |
> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci);
Is the flag (going to be, with the initial work) okay to have for Dom0
on Arm?
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> @@ -712,7 +712,8 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static bool emulation_flags_ok(const struct domain *d, uint32_t emflags)
> +static bool emulation_flags_ok(const struct domain *d, uint32_t emflags,
> + uint32_t cdf)
While apparently views differ, ./CODING_STYLE wants "unsigned int" to be
used for the latter two arguments.
> @@ -722,14 +723,17 @@ static bool emulation_flags_ok(const struct domain *d,
> uint32_t emflags)
> if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
> {
> if ( is_hardware_domain(d) &&
> - emflags != (X86_EMU_VPCI | X86_EMU_LAPIC | X86_EMU_IOAPIC) )
> + (!( cdf & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci ) ||
Nit: Stray blanks inside the inner parentheses.
> + emflags != (X86_EMU_LAPIC | X86_EMU_IOAPIC)) )
> return false;
> if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) &&
> - emflags != (X86_EMU_ALL & ~X86_EMU_VPCI) &&
> - emflags != X86_EMU_LAPIC )
> + ((cdf & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci) ||
> + (emflags != X86_EMU_ALL &&
> + emflags != X86_EMU_LAPIC)) )
> return false;
> }
> - else if ( emflags != 0 && emflags != X86_EMU_PIT )
> + else if ( (cdf & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci) ||
Wouldn't this better be enforced in common code?
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> @@ -892,10 +892,11 @@ static struct domain *__init create_dom0(const module_t
> *image,
> {
> dom0_cfg.flags |= (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm |
> ((hvm_hap_supported() && !opt_dom0_shadow) ?
> - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap : 0));
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap : 0) |
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci);
Less of a change and imo slightly neater as a result would be to simply
put the addition on the same line where CDF_hvm already is. But as with
many style aspects, views may differ here of course ...
Jan
