[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4F917823020000780007EDDF@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:52:19 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
"Lin Ming" <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
Cc: "Andrew Cooper" <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with
hypercall
>>> On 20.04.12 at 14:38, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> wrote:
> 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?
Only when the input is wrong (or it's not a privileged domain).
> Would a BUG_ON be appropriate/
Probably.
Jan
--
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