Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/acrn: Use HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR for Acrn upcall vector

[Zhao, Yakui]

On 2019å03æ25æ 16:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ #ifndef _ASM_X86_ACRNHYPER_H
> > > > +#define _ASM_X86_ACRNHYPER_H
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/io.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACRN
> > > > +/* ACRN Hypervisor callback */
> > > > +void acrn_hv_callback_vector(void);
> > >
> > > What declares acrn_hv_vector_handler() ?
> >
> > Acrn_hv_callback_vector is defined in arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S, which will be used as
> > the parameter of alloc_intr_gate
> >
> > Acrn_hv_vector_handler is the real ISR handler, which is defined in acrn.c.
>
> I know how that works and I was not asking where stuff is defined. I was
> asking where it is declared. Global functions need a declaration in a
> header file.

Sure. It will be declared in next version.

> > > > +void acrn_remove_intr_irq(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	acrn_intr_handler = NULL;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acrn_remove_intr_irq);
> > >
> > > Where is the code which uses these exports? We are not adding exports just
> > > because or for consumption by out of tree modules.
> >
> > Understand it.
> > Is it reasonable that the above two functions are added in the driver patch set?
>
> Yes, because then we see the context.

OK. They will be removed.  And it will be included in driver patch set.

> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx