On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 02:12:56PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > On 11/11/20 3:55 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 01:10:01PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > >> On 11/11/20 2:31 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:50:22PM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > >>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> > >>>> > >>>> According to > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Linux_PVH__;!!GF_29dbcQIUBPA!nEHd6eivmqtdJxtrhO-3x2Mz9F50JsKUoV7WTEJd_D1N01DrBOJXzGW1QAqwshZ9AMxywbUhOA$ > >>>> [wiki[.]xenproject[.]org]: > >>>> > >>>> Items not supported by PVH > >>>> - PCI pass through (as of Xen 4.10) > >>>> > >>>> Allow running PCI remove code on ARM and do not assert for PVH domains. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> tools/libxl/Makefile | 4 ++++ > >>>> tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 4 +++- > >>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile > >>>> index 241da7fff6f4..f3806aafcb4e 100644 > >>>> --- a/tools/libxl/Makefile > >>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile > >>>> @@ -130,6 +130,10 @@ endif > >>>> > >>>> LIBXL_LIBS += -lyajl > >>>> > >>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM),y) > >>>> +CFALGS += -DCONFIG_ARM > >>>> +endif > >>>> + > >>>> LIBXL_OBJS = flexarray.o libxl.o libxl_create.o libxl_dm.o > >>>> libxl_pci.o \ > >>>> libxl_dom.o libxl_exec.o libxl_xshelp.o > >>>> libxl_device.o \ > >>>> libxl_internal.o libxl_utils.o libxl_uuid.o \ > >>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c > >>>> index bc5843b13701..b93cf976642b 100644 > >>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c > >>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c > >>>> @@ -1915,8 +1915,10 @@ static void do_pci_remove(libxl__egc *egc, > >>>> uint32_t domid, > >>>> goto out_fail; > >>>> } > >>>> } else { > >>>> + /* PCI passthrough can also run on ARM PVH */ > >>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM > >>>> assert(type == LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV); > >>>> - > >>>> +#endif > >>> I would just remove the assert now if this is to be used by Arm and > >>> you don't need to fork the file for Arm. > >> Sounds good, I will drop then > >> > >> But what would be the right explanation then? I mean why there was an > >> ASSERT > >> > >> and now it is safe (for x86) to remove that? > > An assert is just a safe belt, the expectation is that it's never hit > > by actual code. Given that this path will now also be used by PVH > > (even if only on Arm) I don't see the point in keeping the assert, and > > making it conditional to != Arm seems worse than just dropping it. > > Ok, so I can write in the patch description something like: > > "this path is now used by PVH, so the assert is no longer valid" > > Does it sound ok?
LGTM. Roger.
