On 12.01.2023 13:16, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 04.01.2023 09:45, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> @@ -2143,6 +2143,14 @@ static bool cf_check vmx_test_pir(const struct vcpu >> *v, uint8_t vec) >> return pi_test_pir(vec, &v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc); >> } >> >> +static int cf_check vmx_pi_update_irte(const struct vcpu *v, >> + const struct pirq *pirq, uint8_t >> gvec) >> +{ >> + const struct pi_desc *pi_desc = v ? &v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc : NULL; >> + >> + return pi_update_irte(pi_desc, pirq, gvec); >> +} > > This being the only caller of pi_update_irte(), I don't see the point in > having the extra wrapper. Adjust pi_update_irte() such that it can be > used as the intended hook directly. Plus perhaps prefix it with vtd_.
Plus move it to vtd/x86/hvm.c (!HVM builds shouldn't need it), albeit I realize this could be done independent of your work. In principle the function shouldn't be VT-d specific (and could hence live in x86/hvm.c), as msi_msg_write_remap_rte() is already available as IOMMU hook anyway, provided struct pi_desc turns out compatible with what's going to be needed for AMD. Jan