On 21.05.2025 00:38, dm...@proton.me wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 16.05.2025 04:29, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/domain.h >>> @@ -494,6 +494,12 @@ struct arch_domain >>> X86_EMU_PIT | X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ | \ >>> X86_EMU_VPCI) >>> >>> +/* User-selectable features. */ >>> +#define X86_EMU_OPTIONAL (X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ) >>> + >>> +#define X86_EMU_BASELINE (X86_EMU_ALL & ~(X86_EMU_VPCI | \ >>> + X86_EMU_OPTIONAL)) >> >> That is, VPCI is neither baseline nor optional. Certainly at least strange. > > IMO, X86_EMU_OPTIONAL should include both VPCI and PIRQ. > > But that will be a behavior change: AFAIU, VPCI is injected implicitly for > dom0 > case only, "default" xl toolstack currently excludes VPCI for HVM domains. > > Do I understand it correctly that "BASELINE" in the symbol name is a concern?
It's not the word by itself. _If_ we want to have such symbols (which I had put under question before), they need to be named to accurately reflect the purpose. Imo with the names chosen an implication is that the two are non-overlapping, while when combined yield the full set of flags. Jan
