[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334925508.28331.63.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:38:28 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
CC: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with
hypercall
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 12:13 +0100, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 10:58 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 20/04/12 10:25, Lin Ming wrote:
> > > Implements xen_io_apic_read with hypercall, so it returns proper IO-APIC
> > > information instead of fabricated one.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/xen/apic.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/apic.c b/arch/x86/xen/apic.c
> > > index aee16ab..f1f392d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/apic.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/apic.c
> > > @@ -1,14 +1,20 @@
> > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > #include <asm/x86_init.h>
> > > +#include <asm/apic.h>
> > > +#include <xen/interface/physdev.h>
> > > +#include <asm/xen/hypercall.h>
> > >
> > > unsigned int xen_io_apic_read(unsigned apic, unsigned reg)
> > > {
> > > - if (reg == 0x1)
> > > - return 0x00170020;
> > > - else if (reg == 0x0)
> > > - return apic << 24;
> > > + struct physdev_apic apic_op;
> > > + int ret;
> > >
> > > - return 0xff;
> > > + apic_op.apic_physbase = mpc_ioapic_addr(apic);
> > > + apic_op.reg = reg;
> > > + ret = HYPERVISOR_physdev_op(PHYSDEVOP_apic_read, &apic_op);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + return apic_op.value;
> >
> > Hypercall ret errors are negative, yet this function is unsigned. Given
> > that the previous function had no possible way to fail, perhaps on error
> > you should fake up the values as before.
>
> How about return -1 on error?
> The calling function can check -1 for error.
Isn't -1 potentially (at least theoretically) a valid value to read from
one of these registers?
Under what circumstances can these hypercalls fail? Would a BUG_ON be
appropriate/
> unsigned int ret = apic_read(...);
> if (ret == -1)
> //handle error.
>
> Thanks,
> Lin Ming
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists