| Message ID | 1483163161-2402-3-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
>>> On 31.12.16 at 06:45, <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> wrote: > Expose vlapic_read_aligned and vlapic_reg_write() to be used by AVIC. > > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> > Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Generally I dislike functions being non-static when all their callers live in the same file. Therefore it would be better (and hardly harder to review) if they got made non-static at the point of their first external use. That'll also help understanding whether that's an appropriate move. Jan
On 01/05/2017 10:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.12.16 at 06:45, <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> wrote: >> Expose vlapic_read_aligned and vlapic_reg_write() to be used by AVIC. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> >> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> > > Generally I dislike functions being non-static when all their callers > live in the same file. Therefore it would be better (and hardly > harder to review) if they got made non-static at the point of their > first external use. That'll also help understanding whether that's > an appropriate move. > > Jan > IIUC, you want these changes to be in the same patch of the one making use of them externally. I can certainly combine this patch with patch 6/10. Thanks, S
>>> On 10.01.17 at 07:57, <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> wrote: > On 01/05/2017 10:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 31.12.16 at 06:45, <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> wrote: >>> Expose vlapic_read_aligned and vlapic_reg_write() to be used by AVIC. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> >> >> Generally I dislike functions being non-static when all their callers >> live in the same file. Therefore it would be better (and hardly >> harder to review) if they got made non-static at the point of their >> first external use. That'll also help understanding whether that's >> an appropriate move. > > IIUC, you want these changes to be in the same patch of the one making > use of them externally. Yes. > I can certainly combine this patch with patch 6/10. Thanks. Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c index 1d5d287..0f52067 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c @@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ static void vlapic_set_tdcr(struct vlapic *vlapic, unsigned int val) "timer_divisor: %d", vlapic->hw.timer_divisor); } -static uint32_t vlapic_read_aligned(struct vlapic *vlapic, unsigned int offset) +uint32_t vlapic_read_aligned(struct vlapic *vlapic, unsigned int offset) { switch ( offset ) { @@ -680,8 +680,7 @@ static void vlapic_tdt_pt_cb(struct vcpu *v, void *data) vcpu_vlapic(v)->hw.tdt_msr = 0; } -static void vlapic_reg_write(struct vcpu *v, - unsigned int offset, uint32_t val) +void vlapic_reg_write(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int offset, uint32_t val) { struct vlapic *vlapic = vcpu_vlapic(v); diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vlapic.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vlapic.h index 4656293..48ab3a6 100644 --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vlapic.h +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vlapic.h @@ -132,6 +132,10 @@ void vlapic_ipi(struct vlapic *vlapic, uint32_t icr_low, uint32_t icr_high); int vlapic_apicv_write(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int offset); +void vlapic_reg_write(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int offset, uint32_t val); + +uint32_t vlapic_read_aligned(struct vlapic *vlapic, unsigned int offset); + struct vlapic *vlapic_lowest_prio( struct domain *d, const struct vlapic *source, int short_hand, uint32_t dest, bool_t dest_mode);