| Message ID | 2a6f5dd6-68b8-91d3-b2aa-15568b53a1e2@caviumnetworks.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 09/06/2017 07:48, Manish Jaggi wrote: > > On 6/8/2017 7:28 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, > Hello Julien, Hello, >>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>> + { >> >> Pointless { >> >>> + size += sizeof(struct acpi_madt_generic_translator); >>> + } > Just for readability of code. You have indentation for that. So I don't think it helps. >> >> Same here + add a newline. >> > Sure. >>> + return size; >>> +} >>> + >>> +u32 gicv3_its_make_hwdom_madt(u8 *base_ptr, u32 offset) >>> +{ >>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *gic_its; >>> + const struct host_its *its_data; >>> + u32 table_len = offset, size; >>> + >>> + /* Update GIC ITS information in hardware domain's MADT */ >>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>> + { >>> + size = sizeof(struct acpi_madt_generic_translator); >>> + gic_its = (struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *)(base_ptr + >>> table_len); >> >> This line is likely too long. >> > I will check it. >>> + gic_its->header.type = ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_TRANSLATOR; >>> + gic_its->header.length = size; >>> + gic_its->base_address = its_data->addr; >> >> On the previous patch you had: >> >> gic_its->translation_id = its_data->translation_id; >> >> I asked to explain why you need to have the same ID as the host. And >> now you dropped it. This does not match the spec (Table 5-67 in ACPI >> 6.1): >> >> "GIC ITS ID. In a system with multiple GIC ITS units, this value must >> be unique to each one." >> >> But here, the ITS ID will not be unique. So why did you dropped it? >> > The reason I dropped it from its_data as I was not setting it. So it > doesn't belong there. Where would it belong then? This function is used to generate ACPI tables for the hardware domain. > Will the below code be ok? If you noticed, I didn't say this code is wrong. Instead I asked why you use the same ID. Meaning, is there anything in the DSDT requiring this value? > + int tras_id = 0; unsigned. > + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) > + { > + gic_its->translation_id = ++trans_id; You start the translation ID at 1. Why? > >>> + table_len += size; >>> + } >>> + return table_len; >>> +} >>> + >>> /* >>> * Create the respective guest DT nodes from a list of host ITSes. >>> * This copies the reg property, so the guest sees the ITS at the same >>> address >>> @@ -992,6 +1045,26 @@ int gicv3_its_make_hwdom_dt_nodes(const struct >>> domain *d, >>> return res; >>> } >>> >>> +int gicv3_its_acpi_init(struct acpi_subtable_header *header, const >>> unsigned long end) >> >> ACPI is an option and is not able by default. Please make sure that >> this code build without ACPI. Likely this means surrounding with >> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. > I will get compiled but not called. Do you still want to put ifdef, i > can add that. All ACPIs functions are protected by ifdef. So this one should be as well. >> >>> +{ >>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *its_entry; >>> + struct host_its *its_data; >>> + >>> + its_data = xzalloc(struct host_its); >>> + if (!its_data) >> >> Coding style. >> > Sure. >>> + return -1; >>> + >>> + its_entry = (struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *)header; >>> + its_data->addr = its_entry->base_address; >>> + its_data->size = ACPI_GICV3_ITS_MEM_SIZE; >>> + >>> + spin_lock_init(&its_data->cmd_lock); >>> + >>> + printk("GICv3: Found ITS @0x%lx\n", its_data->addr); >>> + >>> + list_add_tail(&its_data->entry, &host_its_list); >> >> As said on v1, likely you could re-use factorize a part of >> gicv3_its_dt_init to avoid implementing twice the initialization. >> > For this I have a different opinion. Why didn't you state it on the previous version? I usually interpret a non-answer as an acknowledgment. > gicv3_its_dt_init has a loop dt_for_each_child_node(node, its) while > gicv3_its_acpi_init is a callback. > Moreover, apart from xzalloc and list_add_tail most of the code is > different. so IMHO keeping them separate is better. You still set addr and size as in the DT counterpart. Also, this is a call to forget to initialize a field if we decided to extend the structure host_its. So I still don't see any reason to open-code it and take the risk to introduce bug in the future... >> Also newline. >> >>> + return 0; >>> +} >> >> Newline here. > Sure. >> >>> /* Scan the DT for any ITS nodes and create a list of host ITSes out of >>> it. */ >>> void gicv3_its_dt_init(const struct dt_device_node *node) >>> { >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >>> index c927306..f0f6d12 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >>> @@ -1333,9 +1333,8 @@ static int gicv3_iomem_deny_access(const struct >>> domain *d) >>> return iomem_deny_access(d, mfn, mfn + nr); >>> } >>> >>> - return 0; >>> + return gicv3_its_deny_access(d); >> >> Copying my answer from v1 for convenience: >> >> if ( vbase != INVALID_PADDR ) >> { >> mfn = vbase >> PAGE_SHIFT; >> nr = DIV_ROUND_UP(csize, PAGE_SIZE); >> return iomem_deny_access(d, mfn, mfn + nr); >> } >> >> When GICv3 is able to support GICv2, vbase will be valid and the code >> will bail out after denying access to the GICV. So the ITS regions >> will not be denied. >> > Ok, got your point. Would the below code be ok? LGTM. > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c > index c927306..a3d1eff 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c > @@ -1308,6 +1308,13 @@ static int gicv3_iomem_deny_access(const struct > domain *d) > if ( rc ) > return rc; > > + if ( gicv3_its_host_has_its() ) > + { > + rc = gicv3_its_deny_access(d); > + if ( rc ) > + return rc; > + } > + > for ( i = 0; i < gicv3.rdist_count; i++ ) > { > mfn = gicv3.rdist_regions[i].base >> PAGE_SHIFT; >>> } >>> - >> >> Again, why did you drop this newline? > I will fix it >> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >>> static void __init >>> gic_acpi_add_rdist_region(paddr_t base, paddr_t size, bool >>> single_rdist) >>> @@ -1374,6 +1373,7 @@ static int gicv3_make_hwdom_madt(const struct >>> domain *d, u32 offset) >>> for ( i = 0; i < d->max_vcpus; i++ ) >>> { >>> gicc = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)(base_ptr + >>> table_len); >>> + >> >> As said on v1, spurious change. > No. I wanted to add it intentionally. for a better code readability. A general and simple rule is to separate code clean-up with new functionality. This is not a new functionality and therefore should not be there. >> >>> ACPI_MEMCPY(gicc, host_gicc, size); >>> gicc->cpu_interface_number = i; >>> gicc->uid = i; >>> @@ -1399,7 +1399,7 @@ static int gicv3_make_hwdom_madt(const struct >>> domain *d, u32 offset) >>> gicr->length = d->arch.vgic.rdist_regions[i].size; >>> table_len += size; >>> } >>> - >> >> Again why did you drop the newline? > I will fix it >> >>> + table_len = gicv3_its_make_hwdom_madt(base_ptr, table_len); >>> return table_len; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -1567,6 +1567,9 @@ static void __init gicv3_acpi_init(void) >>> >>> gicv3.rdist_stride = 0; >>> >>> + acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_TRANSLATOR, >>> + gicv3_its_acpi_init, 0); >> >> As said on v1, acpi_table_parse_madt may return an error. Why this is >> not checked? >> > I missed that, I will add it, >>> + >>> /* >>> * In ACPI, 0 is considered as the invalid address. However the >>> rest >>> * of the initialization rely on the invalid address to be >>> @@ -1585,6 +1588,7 @@ static void __init gicv3_acpi_init(void) >>> else >>> vsize = GUEST_GICC_SIZE; >>> >>> + >> >> As said on v1, this is a spurious newline. > ok >> >>> } >>> #else >>> static void __init gicv3_acpi_init(void) { } >>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>> b/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>> index d2a3e53..b72aec2 100644 >>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ >>> >>> #include <xen/device_tree.h> >>> #include <xen/rbtree.h> >>> +#include <xen/acpi.h> >>> >>> #define HOST_ITS_FLUSH_CMD_QUEUE (1U << 0) >>> #define HOST_ITS_USES_PTA (1U << 1) >>> @@ -134,6 +135,7 @@ extern struct list_head host_its_list; >>> >>> /* Parse the host DT and pick up all host ITSes. */ >>> void gicv3_its_dt_init(const struct dt_device_node *node); >>> +int gicv3_its_acpi_init(struct acpi_subtable_header *header, const >>> unsigned long end); >> >> This will likely need an #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. And also a stub would be >> required if ITS is disabled. >> > Sorry didnt got your point. on ifdef. Look how gicv3_its_dt_init has been introduced. There is a stub for when ITS is not built-in. Furthermore, the function is ACPI specific are therefore should be protected with #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. > I can add a check gicv3_its_host_has_its() before calling > gicv3_its_acpi_init, would that be ok? gicv3_its_host_has_its will always return false as it is rely on the list of ITS to be populated. However, this will be populated by gicv3_its_acpi_init... Regards,
Hi julien, On 6/9/2017 2:09 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 09/06/2017 07:48, Manish Jaggi wrote: >> >> On 6/8/2017 7:28 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Hi, >> Hello Julien, > > Hello, > >>>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>>> + { >>> >>> Pointless { >>> >>>> + size += sizeof(struct acpi_madt_generic_translator); >>>> + } >> Just for readability of code. > > You have indentation for that. So I don't think it helps. ok i will fix it. > >>> >>> Same here + add a newline. >>> >> Sure. >>>> + return size; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +u32 gicv3_its_make_hwdom_madt(u8 *base_ptr, u32 offset) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *gic_its; >>>> + const struct host_its *its_data; >>>> + u32 table_len = offset, size; >>>> + >>>> + /* Update GIC ITS information in hardware domain's MADT */ >>>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>>> + { >>>> + size = sizeof(struct acpi_madt_generic_translator); >>>> + gic_its = (struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *)(base_ptr + >>>> table_len); >>> >>> This line is likely too long. >>> >> I will check it. >>>> + gic_its->header.type = ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_TRANSLATOR; >>>> + gic_its->header.length = size; >>>> + gic_its->base_address = its_data->addr; >>> >>> On the previous patch you had: >>> >>> gic_its->translation_id = its_data->translation_id; >>> >>> I asked to explain why you need to have the same ID as the host. And >>> now you dropped it. This does not match the spec (Table 5-67 in ACPI >>> 6.1): >>> >>> "GIC ITS ID. In a system with multiple GIC ITS units, this value must >>> be unique to each one." >>> >>> But here, the ITS ID will not be unique. So why did you dropped it? >>> >> The reason I dropped it from its_data as I was not setting it. So it >> doesn't belong there. > > Where would it belong then? > > This function is used to generate ACPI tables for the hardware domain. > > >> Will the below code be ok? > > If you noticed, I didn't say this code is wrong. Instead I asked why > you use the same ID. Meaning, is there anything in the DSDT requiring > this value? > >> + int tras_id = 0; > > unsigned. > >> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >> + { >> + gic_its->translation_id = ++trans_id; > > You start the translation ID at 1. Why? > as per the ACPI spec the value should be unique to each GIC ITS unit. Does starting with 1 break anything? Or should I start with a magic number? >> >>>> + table_len += size; >>>> + } >>>> + return table_len; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> /* >>>> * Create the respective guest DT nodes from a list of host ITSes. >>>> * This copies the reg property, so the guest sees the ITS at the >>>> same >>>> address >>>> @@ -992,6 +1045,26 @@ int gicv3_its_make_hwdom_dt_nodes(const struct >>>> domain *d, >>>> return res; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +int gicv3_its_acpi_init(struct acpi_subtable_header *header, const >>>> unsigned long end) >>> >>> ACPI is an option and is not able by default. Please make sure that >>> this code build without ACPI. Likely this means surrounding with >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. >> I will get compiled but not called. Do you still want to put ifdef, i >> can add that. > > All ACPIs functions are protected by ifdef. So this one should be as > well. ok will do. > >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *its_entry; >>>> + struct host_its *its_data; >>>> + >>>> + its_data = xzalloc(struct host_its); >>>> + if (!its_data) >>> >>> Coding style. >>> >> Sure. >>>> + return -1; >>>> + >>>> + its_entry = (struct acpi_madt_generic_translator *)header; >>>> + its_data->addr = its_entry->base_address; >>>> + its_data->size = ACPI_GICV3_ITS_MEM_SIZE; >>>> + >>>> + spin_lock_init(&its_data->cmd_lock); >>>> + >>>> + printk("GICv3: Found ITS @0x%lx\n", its_data->addr); >>>> + >>>> + list_add_tail(&its_data->entry, &host_its_list); >>> >>> As said on v1, likely you could re-use factorize a part of >>> gicv3_its_dt_init to avoid implementing twice the initialization. >>> >> For this I have a different opinion. > > Why didn't you state it on the previous version? I usually interpret a > non-answer as an acknowledgment. > >> gicv3_its_dt_init has a loop dt_for_each_child_node(node, its) while >> gicv3_its_acpi_init is a callback. >> Moreover, apart from xzalloc and list_add_tail most of the code is >> different. so IMHO keeping them separate is better. > > You still set addr and size as in the DT counterpart. Also, this is a > call to forget to initialize a field if we decided to extend the > structure host_its. So I still don't see any reason to open-code it > and take the risk to introduce bug in the future... ok Added. > >>> Also newline. >>> >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>> >>> Newline here. >> Sure. >>> >>>> /* Scan the DT for any ITS nodes and create a list of host ITSes >>>> out of >>>> it. */ >>>> void gicv3_its_dt_init(const struct dt_device_node *node) >>>> { >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >>>> index c927306..f0f6d12 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >>>> @@ -1333,9 +1333,8 @@ static int gicv3_iomem_deny_access(const struct >>>> domain *d) >>>> return iomem_deny_access(d, mfn, mfn + nr); >>>> } >>>> >>>> - return 0; >>>> + return gicv3_its_deny_access(d); >>> >>> Copying my answer from v1 for convenience: >>> >>> if ( vbase != INVALID_PADDR ) >>> { >>> mfn = vbase >> PAGE_SHIFT; >>> nr = DIV_ROUND_UP(csize, PAGE_SIZE); >>> return iomem_deny_access(d, mfn, mfn + nr); >>> } >>> >>> When GICv3 is able to support GICv2, vbase will be valid and the code >>> will bail out after denying access to the GICV. So the ITS regions >>> will not be denied. >>> >> Ok, got your point. Would the below code be ok? > > LGTM. > >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >> index c927306..a3d1eff 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c >> @@ -1308,6 +1308,13 @@ static int gicv3_iomem_deny_access(const struct >> domain *d) >> if ( rc ) >> return rc; >> >> + if ( gicv3_its_host_has_its() ) >> + { >> + rc = gicv3_its_deny_access(d); >> + if ( rc ) >> + return rc; >> + } >> + >> for ( i = 0; i < gicv3.rdist_count; i++ ) >> { >> mfn = gicv3.rdist_regions[i].base >> PAGE_SHIFT; >>>> } >>>> - >>> >>> Again, why did you drop this newline? >> I will fix it >>> >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >>>> static void __init >>>> gic_acpi_add_rdist_region(paddr_t base, paddr_t size, bool >>>> single_rdist) >>>> @@ -1374,6 +1373,7 @@ static int gicv3_make_hwdom_madt(const struct >>>> domain *d, u32 offset) >>>> for ( i = 0; i < d->max_vcpus; i++ ) >>>> { >>>> gicc = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)(base_ptr + >>>> table_len); >>>> + >>> >>> As said on v1, spurious change. >> No. I wanted to add it intentionally. for a better code readability. > > A general and simple rule is to separate code clean-up with new > functionality. This is not a new functionality and therefore should > not be there. ok > >>> >>>> ACPI_MEMCPY(gicc, host_gicc, size); >>>> gicc->cpu_interface_number = i; >>>> gicc->uid = i; >>>> @@ -1399,7 +1399,7 @@ static int gicv3_make_hwdom_madt(const struct >>>> domain *d, u32 offset) >>>> gicr->length = d->arch.vgic.rdist_regions[i].size; >>>> table_len += size; >>>> } >>>> - >>> >>> Again why did you drop the newline? >> I will fix it >>> >>>> + table_len = gicv3_its_make_hwdom_madt(base_ptr, table_len); >>>> return table_len; >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -1567,6 +1567,9 @@ static void __init gicv3_acpi_init(void) >>>> >>>> gicv3.rdist_stride = 0; >>>> >>>> + acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_TRANSLATOR, >>>> + gicv3_its_acpi_init, 0); >>> >>> As said on v1, acpi_table_parse_madt may return an error. Why this is >>> not checked? >>> >> I missed that, I will add it, >>>> + >>>> /* >>>> * In ACPI, 0 is considered as the invalid address. However the >>>> rest >>>> * of the initialization rely on the invalid address to be >>>> @@ -1585,6 +1588,7 @@ static void __init gicv3_acpi_init(void) >>>> else >>>> vsize = GUEST_GICC_SIZE; >>>> >>>> + >>> >>> As said on v1, this is a spurious newline. >> ok >>> >>>> } >>>> #else >>>> static void __init gicv3_acpi_init(void) { } >>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>>> b/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>>> index d2a3e53..b72aec2 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/gic_v3_its.h >>>> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ >>>> >>>> #include <xen/device_tree.h> >>>> #include <xen/rbtree.h> >>>> +#include <xen/acpi.h> >>>> >>>> #define HOST_ITS_FLUSH_CMD_QUEUE (1U << 0) >>>> #define HOST_ITS_USES_PTA (1U << 1) >>>> @@ -134,6 +135,7 @@ extern struct list_head host_its_list; >>>> >>>> /* Parse the host DT and pick up all host ITSes. */ >>>> void gicv3_its_dt_init(const struct dt_device_node *node); >>>> +int gicv3_its_acpi_init(struct acpi_subtable_header *header, const >>>> unsigned long end); >>> >>> This will likely need an #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. And also a stub would be >>> required if ITS is disabled. >>> >> Sorry didnt got your point. on ifdef. > > Look how gicv3_its_dt_init has been introduced. There is a stub for > when ITS is not built-in. Furthermore, the function is ACPI specific > are therefore should be protected with #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. > >> I can add a check gicv3_its_host_has_its() before calling >> gicv3_its_acpi_init, would that be ok? > > gicv3_its_host_has_its will always return false as it is rely on the > list of ITS to be populated. However, this will be populated by > gicv3_its_acpi_init... > ok will add > Regards, >
On 13/06/17 12:02, Manish Jaggi wrote: >>> Will the below code be ok? >> >> If you noticed, I didn't say this code is wrong. Instead I asked why >> you use the same ID. Meaning, is there anything in the DSDT requiring >> this value? >> >>> + int tras_id = 0; >> >> unsigned. >> >>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>> + { >>> + gic_its->translation_id = ++trans_id; >> >> You start the translation ID at 1. Why? >> > as per the ACPI spec the value should be unique to each GIC ITS unit. > Does starting with 1 break anything? Or should I start with a magic number? Rather than arguing on the start value here, you should have first answer to the question regarding the usage of translation_id. I understand that nobody is using it today. However, when I asked around me nobody ruled out to any future usage of GIC ITS ID and request this to be kept as it is. This means that you can simply copy over the ACPI tables. Rather regenerating them. Cheers,
On 6/13/2017 4:58 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > On 13/06/17 12:02, Manish Jaggi wrote: >>>> Will the below code be ok? >>> >>> If you noticed, I didn't say this code is wrong. Instead I asked why >>> you use the same ID. Meaning, is there anything in the DSDT requiring >>> this value? >>> >>>> + int tras_id = 0; >>> >>> unsigned. >>> >>>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>>> + { >>>> + gic_its->translation_id = ++trans_id; >>> >>> You start the translation ID at 1. Why? >>> >> as per the ACPI spec the value should be unique to each GIC ITS unit. >> Does starting with 1 break anything? Or should I start with a magic >> number? > > Rather than arguing on the start value here, you should have first > answer to the question regarding the usage of translation_id. in v1 I assumed that it would be the same as read from host its tables, so it would have a unique value as programmed by host firmware. > > I understand that nobody is using it today. However, when I asked > around me nobody ruled out to any future usage of GIC ITS ID and > request this to be kept as it is. > > This means that you can simply copy over the ACPI tables. Rather > regenerating them. > I dont follow your comment, a bit confused In v1 you mentioned that "Please explain why you need to have the same ID as the host." now when you say we copy over the translation_id would be same as that of host? > Cheers, >
On 13/06/17 12:44, Manish Jaggi wrote: > On 6/13/2017 4:58 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 13/06/17 12:02, Manish Jaggi wrote: >>>>> Will the below code be ok? >>>> >>>> If you noticed, I didn't say this code is wrong. Instead I asked why >>>> you use the same ID. Meaning, is there anything in the DSDT requiring >>>> this value? >>>> >>>>> + int tras_id = 0; >>>> >>>> unsigned. >>>> >>>>> + list_for_each_entry(its_data, &host_its_list, entry) >>>>> + { >>>>> + gic_its->translation_id = ++trans_id; >>>> >>>> You start the translation ID at 1. Why? >>>> >>> as per the ACPI spec the value should be unique to each GIC ITS unit. >>> Does starting with 1 break anything? Or should I start with a magic >>> number? >> >> Rather than arguing on the start value here, you should have first >> answer to the question regarding the usage of translation_id. > in v1 I assumed that it would be the same as read from host its tables, > so it would have a unique value as programmed by host firmware. >> >> I understand that nobody is using it today. However, when I asked >> around me nobody ruled out to any future usage of GIC ITS ID and >> request this to be kept as it is. >> >> This means that you can simply copy over the ACPI tables. Rather >> regenerating them. >> > I dont follow your comment, a bit confused > In v1 you mentioned that "Please explain why you need to have the same > ID as the host." > now when you say we copy over the translation_id would be same as that > of host? Usually when I say: "Please explain..." it means I want more documentation in the code because I am not sure to follow why it is necessary. It does not mean "The code is wrong". If it was, I would have clearly wrote it and give justification on it. Furthermore, this kind of documentation will help a reader to understand your code and avoid spending hours to find a justification. The contributor should be able to justify any code he wrote and help the reviewers to understand the patch quickly. Cheers,
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c index c927306..a3d1eff 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c @@ -1308,6 +1308,13 @@ static int gicv3_iomem_deny_access(const struct domain *d) if ( rc ) return rc; + if ( gicv3_its_host_has_its() ) + { + rc = gicv3_its_deny_access(d); + if ( rc ) + return rc; + } + for ( i = 0; i < gicv3.rdist_count; i++ ) {