Hi Jan,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:29 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 31.08.2025 00:10, Mykola Kvach wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/ppc/stubs.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/ppc/stubs.c
> > @@ -224,6 +224,11 @@ void arch_domain_creation_finished(struct domain *d)
> > BUG_ON("unimplemented");
> > }
> >
> > +int arch_domain_resume(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > int arch_set_info_guest(struct vcpu *v, vcpu_guest_context_u c)
> > {
> > BUG_ON("unimplemented");
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c b/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c
> > index 1a8c86cd8d..52532ae14d 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c
> > @@ -198,6 +198,11 @@ void arch_domain_creation_finished(struct domain *d)
> > BUG_ON("unimplemented");
> > }
> >
> > +int arch_domain_resume(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > int arch_set_info_guest(struct vcpu *v, vcpu_guest_context_u c)
> > {
> > BUG_ON("unimplemented");
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > index 19fd86ce88..94a06bc697 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > @@ -1138,6 +1138,11 @@ void arch_domain_creation_finished(struct domain *d)
> > hvm_domain_creation_finished(d);
> > }
> >
> > +int arch_domain_resume(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > #define xen_vcpu_guest_context vcpu_guest_context
> > #define fpu_ctxt fpu_ctxt.x
>
> I definitely don't like this redundancy, and even less so that you introduce
> out-
> of-line calls.
Thank you for your feedback.
I followed the existing pattern used in other architecture stubs.
>
> > --- a/xen/include/xen/domain.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/domain.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ int arch_domain_soft_reset(struct domain *d);
> >
> > void arch_domain_creation_finished(struct domain *d);
> >
> > +int arch_domain_resume(struct domain *d);
>
> I think this wants to move to a per-arch header, presence of which is checked
> by
> has_include(), with an inline fallback define once centrally here.
Would it be acceptable to use a weak function as the default
implementation instead? This way, architectures needing a real
implementation could override it, while others would use the weak
default.
>
> Jan
Best regards,
Mykola
