16.05.24 14:01, Jan Beulich:
On 15.05.2024 11:10, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
@@ -38,7 +38,10 @@ static inline bool altp2m_active(const struct domain *d)
}
/* Only declaration is needed. DCE will optimise it out when linking. */
+void altp2m_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v);
+void altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v);
uint16_t altp2m_vcpu_idx(const struct vcpu *v);
+int altp2m_vcpu_enable_ve(struct vcpu *v, gfn_t gfn);
void altp2m_vcpu_disable_ve(struct vcpu *v);
These additions look unrelated, as long as the description says nothing in
this regard.
agree, I'll update description on why these declarations are added
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
@@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static inline bool hvm_hap_supported(void)
/* returns true if hardware supports alternate p2m's */
static inline bool hvm_altp2m_supported(void)
{
- return hvm_funcs.caps.altp2m;
+ return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ALTP2M) && hvm_funcs.caps.altp2m;
Which in turn raises the question whether the altp2m struct field shouldn't
become conditional upon CONFIG_ALTP2M too (or rather: instead, as the change
here then would need to be done differently). Yet maybe that would entail
further changes elsewhere, so may well better be left for later.
but hvm_funcs.caps.altp2m is only a capability bit -- is it worth to
become conditional?
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
obj-y += shadow/
obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += hap/
-obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += altp2m.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ALTP2M) += altp2m.o
This change I think wants to move to patch 5.
If this moves to patch 5 then HVM=y && ALTP2M=n configuration
combination will break the build in between patch 5 and 6, so I've
decided to put it together with fixes of these build failures in patch 6.
Maybe I can merge patch 5 & 6 together then ?
-Sergiy
