Messages in this thread | | | From | Pavel Tatashin <> | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:58:20 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm/arm64/xen: use C inlines for privcmd_call |
| |
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:05 AM Julien Grall <julien@xen.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 27/11/2019 18:44, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h > > index 3522cbaed316..1a74fb28607f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h > > @@ -1 +1,29 @@ > > +#ifndef _ASM_ARM64_XEN_HYPERCALL_H > > +#define _ASM_ARM64_XEN_HYPERCALL_H > > #include <xen/arm/hypercall.h> > > +#include <linux/uaccess.h> > > + > > +static inline long privcmd_call(unsigned int call, unsigned long a1, > > + unsigned long a2, unsigned long a3, > > + unsigned long a4, unsigned long a5) > > I realize that privcmd_call is the only hypercall using Software PAN at > the moment. However, dm_op needs the same as hypercall will be issued > from userspace as well.
The clean-up I am working on now is specific to moving current PAN useage to C wraps. Once dm_op requires to use PAN it will need to be used the C variants, because ASM versions are going to be removed by this series.
> > So I was wondering whether we should create a generic function (e.g. > do_xen_hypercall() or do_xen_user_hypercall()) to cover the two hypercalls? > > > diff --git a/include/xen/arm/hypercall.h b/include/xen/arm/hypercall.h > > index b40485e54d80..624c8ad7e42a 100644 > > --- a/include/xen/arm/hypercall.h > > +++ b/include/xen/arm/hypercall.h > > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ > > * IN THE SOFTWARE. > > */ > > > > -#ifndef _ASM_ARM_XEN_HYPERCALL_H > > -#define _ASM_ARM_XEN_HYPERCALL_H > > +#ifndef _ARM_XEN_HYPERCALL_H > > +#define _ARM_XEN_HYPERCALL_H > > This change feels a bit out of context. Could you split it in a separate > patch?
Makes sense, I am splitting this into a separate patch.
Thank you, Pasha
| |