On 20.04.2022 08:22, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 20.04.22 08:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.04.2022 07:57, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
>>> @@ -341,8 +341,17 @@ struct domain_iommu {
>>> /* Does the IOMMU pagetable need to be kept synchronized with the P2M */
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
>>> #define need_iommu_pt_sync(d) (dom_iommu(d)->need_sync)
>>> +
>>> +int iommu_do_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct domain *d,
>>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl);
>>> #else
>>> #define need_iommu_pt_sync(d) ({ (void)(d); false; })
>>> +
>>> +static inline int iommu_do_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct domain
>>> *d,
>>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t)
>>> u_domctl)
>>> +{
>>> + return -ENOSYS;
>>> +}
>>
>> As said in reply to Andrew as well as in a number or earlier occasions,
>> I firmly think that this wants to be -EOPNOTSUPP, not -ENOSYS. Views
>
> In libxl there is an explicit check for ENOSYS being returned for
> assigning/deassigning a device, same in the xc python bindings.
Urgh.
Jan
