On 22.07.2025 15:46, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
>
> On 22.07.25 11:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.07.2025 12:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com>
>>>
>>> On platforms without PIRQ support evtchn_move_pirqs()/send_guest_pirq()
>>> functions are unreachable (Misra rule 2.1).
>>>
>>> Move these function under CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ ifdefs to fix Misra rule 2.1
>>> violation and resolve call of evtchn_move_pirqs() from common /sched/core.c
>>> vcpu_move_irqs() code by moving evtchn_move_pirqs() into x86
>>> arch_move_irqs() callback (which is converted to define).
>>
>> The patch title isn't quite appropriate anymore with this description, I
>> think.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> preferably with ...
>>
>>> @@ -1707,6 +1709,7 @@ void evtchn_destroy_final(struct domain *d)
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ
>>> void evtchn_move_pirqs(struct vcpu *v)
>>> {
>>> struct domain *d = v->domain;
>>
>> ... one of the two blank lines also dropped here, just like you do ...
>>
>>> @@ -1722,7 +1725,7 @@ void evtchn_move_pirqs(struct vcpu *v)
>>> }
>>> read_unlock(&d->event_lock);
>>> }
>>> -
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ */
>>
>> ... here. Happy to adjust while committing,
>
> Thank you.
>
>> but please consider suggesting a replacement patch title.
>
> Honestly, I, by myself, not sure about proper patch title :(
> My options would be:
>
> "xen/evtchn: evtchn_move_pirqs()/send_guest_pirq() fix MISRA Rule 2.1
> violation"
>
> "xen/evtchn: opt out of common pIRQ code for arches without pIRQ support"
>
> "xen/evtchn: fully restrict concept of pIRQ for arches with pIRQ support
> only"
I would probably pick one of the latter two, but as said - an ack is still
missing here. FTAOD: It is on you to chase it.
Jan
