On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Jiqian Chen wrote: > On PVH dom0, the gsis don't get registered, but > the gsi of a passthrough device must be configured for it to > be able to be mapped into a hvm domU. > On Linux kernel side, it calles PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi for > passthrough devices to register gsi when dom0 is PVH. > So, add PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi for above purpose. > > Co-developed-by: Huang Rui <ray.hu...@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <jiqian.c...@amd.com> > --- > xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c > index 493998b42ec5..46f51ee459f6 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c > @@ -76,6 +76,12 @@ 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; > + ASSERT(!has_pirq(currd));
Do we really need this assert? I understand that the use case right now is for !has_pirq(currd) but in general it doesn't seem to me that PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi and !has_pirq should be tied together. Aside from that, it looks fine. > + break; > + > case PHYSDEVOP_eoi: > case PHYSDEVOP_irq_status_query: > case PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq: > -- > 2.34.1 >
