On 29.04.2021 16:46, Rahul Singh wrote: > MSI code that implements MSI functionality to support MSI within XEN is > not usable on ARM. Move the code under CONFIG_HAS_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT flag > to gate the code for ARM. > > Currently, we have no idea how MSI functionality will be supported for > other architecture therefore we have decided to move the code under > CONFIG_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT. We know this is not the right flag to gate the > code but to avoid an extra flag we decided to use this.
My objection remains: Actively putting code under the wrong gating CONFIG_* is imo quite a bit worse than keeping it under a too wide one (e.g. CONFIG_X86), if introducing a separate CONFIG_HAS_PCI_MSI is deemed undesirable for whatever reason. Otherwise every abuse of CONFIG_PCI_MSI_INTERCEPT ought to get a comment to the effect of this being an abuse, which in particular for code you move into xen/drivers/passthrough/msi-intercept.c would end up sufficiently odd. (As a minor extra remark, putting deliberately misplaced code at the top of a file rather than at its bottom is likely to add to possible confusion down the road.) Jan
