[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] use of struct hvm_irq_dpci in pv guests
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Haitao Shan <maillists.shan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:02:49 +0800
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:03:58 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=LAfdpOaRpcOjHtUhLeg9tfEDnPa1O0r88Rzma4urBtAB2rMomJ4YRL6wAvdI0SsnNe /7oNo0lP2xqKDs3t96OFlcIL1lGTHDdMa3oOLUD9ymuCpI0gBFVn066iy4jN2jZtS1Qz EyTLQJEbDm+dbbHPIVvrmvlExr6Hj13sy+CKU=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
Hi, Jan, I think it should be protected by is_hvm_domain(). Anyway, I have saw your patches already in upstream Xen. Shan Haitao
2011/3/31 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
The per-domain pointer to this is stored in ->arch.hvm_domain.irq.dpci,
hence suggesting that this is a HVM only field.
do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq) and domain_get_irq_dpci()
access it however without considering HVM-ness. In the course of
splitting/shrinking struct domain, I'd therefore need to know whether
this field ought to become common, or whether all accessors of the
field need to get protected by is_hvm_domain().
Thanks, Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
