Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3] x86/vm_event: Added support for VM_EVENT_REASON_INTERRUPT

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 11.11.16 at 11:15, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 12:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 11.11.16 at 09:06, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
>>> @@ -576,6 +576,10 @@ struct arch_vcpu
>>>      XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(vcpu_time_info_t) time_info_guest;
>>>  
>>>      struct arch_vm_event *vm_event;
>>> +
>>> +    struct {
>>> +        unsigned int next_interrupt_enabled : 1;
>> 
>> bool? Stray spaces. And then (sorry for thinking of this only now) - is
>> this really usefully an arch-specific flag? I guess there's nothing
>> precluding this from also being implemented on ARM eventually?
> 
> Stray spaces? Do you mean the newline between "struct arch_vm_event
> *vm_event;" and "struct {"?

No. I mean the ones around the colon.

> I'd prefer to leave this as a bitfield for consistency.

Use of bool doesn't preclude the use of a bitfield.

> Which leads to your next question: nothing precludes this from also
> being implemented on ARM at some point, however the convention so far
> has been to have a "monitor" for x86 with all the supported options, and
> one for ARM:
> 
> 130     /* Monitor options */
> 131     struct {
> 132         uint8_t privileged_call_enabled : 1;
> 133     } monitor;

I'll leave that part to you and Tamas, as the maintainers of the
subsystem.

Jan


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