Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:37:38 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, sstabellini@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: xen: Implement EFI reset_system callback
Message-ID: <20170419193738.GM24360@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <e5b548be-2ec3-9b4f-a456-929d5fb881ab@oracle.com>
 <b8c9c6cd-906a-2360-ca9f-d34a45258567@suse.com>
 <3f6f5853-cd08-8afc-f71a-b0c1545c7564@arm.com>
 <20170406142710.GE4372@olila.local.net-space.pl>
 <ed7f64f4-17db-e2a5-f362-b382666cbc36@suse.com>
 <20170406152040.GH4372@olila.local.net-space.pl>
 <e449f220-8db7-d58c-bdbf-47ccd6dd014b@arm.com>
 <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej>
 <20170418134650.GL24360@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20170419192906.GO16658@olila.local.net-space.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170419192906.GO16658@olila.local.net-space.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1078
Lines: 28

On Wed, 19 Apr, at 09:29:06PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:46:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper,
> > > rather than spreading it further.
> > >
> > > IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xen wrapper
> > > should provide an implementation.
> > >
> > > I don't see why you can't implement a wrapper that calls the usual Xen
> > > poweroff/reset functions.
> >
> > I realise I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but adding
> > EFI_PARAVIRT is almost always the wrong thing to do.
> 
> Why?
 
Because it makes paravirt a special case, and there's usually very
little reason to make it special in the EFI code. Special-casing means
more branches, more code paths, a bigger testing matrix and more
complex code. 

EFI_PARAVIRT does have its uses, like for those scenarios where we
don't have a table of function pointers that can be overidden for
paravirt.

But we do have such a table for ->reset_system().