Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 6/8] xen/arm: introduce GNTTABOP_cache_flush

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.10.14 at 11:04, <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 17:31 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > >>> On 20.10.14 at 17:24, <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 10:48 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> > >>  
>> > >> @@ -574,6 +576,25 @@ struct gnttab_swap_grant_ref {
>> > >>  typedef struct gnttab_swap_grant_ref gnttab_swap_grant_ref_t;
>> > >>  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(gnttab_swap_grant_ref_t);
>> > >>  
>> > >> +/*
>> > >> + * Issue one or more cache maintenance operations on a portion of a
>> > >> + * page granted to the calling domain by a foreign domain.
>> > >> + */
>> > >> +struct gnttab_cache_flush {
>> > >> +    union {
>> > >> +        uint64_t dev_bus_addr;
>> > >> +        grant_ref_t ref;
>> > >> +    } a;
>> > >> +    uint16_t offset; /* offset from start of grant */
>> > >> +    uint16_t length; /* size within the grant */
>> > > 
>> > > So are these not valid when used with dev_bus_addr? I can see that being
>> > > the case for offset, but length too?
>> > 
>> > Both ought to be valid, and dev_bus_addr should be page aligned.
>> 
>> That's right.
> 
> I would have expected you to correct the comment in the repost then
> (which I notice also still says arm in the subject)

I have to admit I'm having trouble seeing which of the comments
you think is wrong/misleading.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel