Re: [PATCH v3] xen: Remove dependency between pciback and privcmd

[Chen, Jiqian]

On 2024/10/11 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.10.2024 05:42, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>> @@ -1757,11 +1756,19 @@ static int __init xen_pcibk_init(void)
>>  		bus_register_notifier(&pci_bus_type, &pci_stub_nb);
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_ACPI
>> +	xen_acpi_register_get_gsi_func(pcistub_get_gsi_from_sbdf);
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  	return err;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void __exit xen_pcibk_cleanup(void)
>>  {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_ACPI
>> +	xen_acpi_register_get_gsi_func(NULL);
>> +#endif
> 
> Just wondering - instead of these two #ifdef-s, ...
> 
>> --- a/include/xen/acpi.h
>> +++ b/include/xen/acpi.h
>> @@ -91,13 +91,9 @@ static inline int xen_acpi_get_gsi_info(struct pci_dev *dev,
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>  
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PCI_STUB
>> -int pcistub_get_gsi_from_sbdf(unsigned int sbdf);
>> -#else
>> -static inline int pcistub_get_gsi_from_sbdf(unsigned int sbdf)
>> -{
>> -	return -1;
>> -}
>> -#endif
>> +typedef int (*get_gsi_from_sbdf_t)(u32 sbdf);
>> +
>> +void xen_acpi_register_get_gsi_func(get_gsi_from_sbdf_t func);
>> +int xen_acpi_get_gsi_from_sbdf(u32 sbdf);
> 
> ... wouldn't a static inline stub (for the !XEN_ACPI case) aid overall readability?
I'm not sure if other files do this. But for me, it feels a little strange to use "#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_ACPI #else" in apci.h, like self-containment.
And "#include apci.h" in pic_stub.c is also wraped with CONFIG_XEN_ACPI.

> 
> Jan

-- 
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.