On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 01:10:01PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > On 11/11/20 2:31 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:50:22PM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > >> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> > >> > >> According to https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Linux_PVH: > >> > >> Items not supported by PVH > >> - PCI pass through (as of Xen 4.10) > >> > >> Allow running PCI remove code on ARM and do not assert for PVH domains. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com> > >> --- > >> tools/libxl/Makefile | 4 ++++ > >> tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 4 +++- > >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile > >> index 241da7fff6f4..f3806aafcb4e 100644 > >> --- a/tools/libxl/Makefile > >> +++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile > >> @@ -130,6 +130,10 @@ endif > >> > >> LIBXL_LIBS += -lyajl > >> > >> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM),y) > >> +CFALGS += -DCONFIG_ARM > >> +endif > >> + > >> LIBXL_OBJS = flexarray.o libxl.o libxl_create.o libxl_dm.o libxl_pci.o \ > >> libxl_dom.o libxl_exec.o libxl_xshelp.o libxl_device.o \ > >> libxl_internal.o libxl_utils.o libxl_uuid.o \ > >> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c > >> index bc5843b13701..b93cf976642b 100644 > >> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c > >> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c > >> @@ -1915,8 +1915,10 @@ static void do_pci_remove(libxl__egc *egc, uint32_t > >> domid, > >> goto out_fail; > >> } > >> } else { > >> + /* PCI passthrough can also run on ARM PVH */ > >> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM > >> assert(type == LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PV); > >> - > >> +#endif > > I would just remove the assert now if this is to be used by Arm and > > you don't need to fork the file for Arm. > > Sounds good, I will drop then > > But what would be the right explanation then? I mean why there was an ASSERT > > and now it is safe (for x86) to remove that?
An assert is just a safe belt, the expectation is that it's never hit by actual code. Given that this path will now also be used by PVH (even if only on Arm) I don't see the point in keeping the assert, and making it conditional to != Arm seems worse than just dropping it. Thanks, Roger.
