[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v1 06/15] vt-d: Extend struct iremap_entry to support VT-d Posted-Interrupts
>>> On 27.03.15 at 02:53, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:01 AM >> On 25/03/15 12:31, Feng Wu wrote: >> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.h >> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.h >> > @@ -303,6 +303,18 @@ struct iremap_entry { >> > res_2 : 8, >> > dst : 32; >> > }lo; >> > + struct { >> > + u64 p : 1, >> > + fpd : 1, >> > + res_1 : 6, >> > + avail : 4, >> > + res_2 : 2, >> > + urg : 1, >> > + im : 1, >> > + vector : 8, >> > + res_3 : 14, >> > + pda_l : 26; >> > + }lo_intpost; >> > }; >> > union { >> > u64 hi_val; >> > @@ -312,6 +324,13 @@ struct iremap_entry { >> > svt : 2, >> > res_1 : 44; >> > }hi; >> > + struct { >> > + u64 sid : 16, >> > + sq : 2, >> > + svt : 2, >> > + res_1 : 12, >> > + pda_h : 32; >> > + }hi_intpost; >> >> I would prefer if this union was reformatted as I suggested in the >> thread from your design doc, but I won't insist on it as a blocker to entry. > > Thanks for the comments. I also considered your sugguestion on the Design > doc, here is your proposal: > > struct iremap_entry { > union { > struct { u64 lo, hi; }; > struct { <bitfields> } norm; (names subject to improvement) > struct { <bitfields> } post; > }; > }; > > Seems in that way, we need to change some existing code to adapt to > this new structure. I am okay with both of them, but can we listen > some voices form some others? Is it okay for you? I think this would be a good move, but in the end it's the VT-d maintainers who got to decide. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |