[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5492911D.3000900@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:32:29 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 23/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
is preempted
On 18/12/2014 04:15, Wu, Feng wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Paolo!
>
> If we use u64 new_control, we cannot use new.sn any more.
> Maybe we can change the struct pi_desc {} like this:
>
> typedef struct pid_control{
> u64 on : 1,
> sn : 1,
> rsvd_1 : 13,
> ndm : 1,
> nv : 8,
> rsvd_2 : 8,
> ndst : 32;
> }pid_control_t;
>
> struct pi_desc {
> u32 pir[8]; /* Posted interrupt requested */
> pid_control_t control;
Probably something like this to keep the union:
typedef union pid_control {
u64 full;
struct {
u64 on : 1,
...
} fields;
};
> u32 rsvd[6];
> } __aligned(64);
>
>
> Then we can define pid_control_t new_control, old_control. And use new_control.sn = 0.
>
> What is your opinon?
Sure. Alternatively, keep using struct pi_desc new; just
do not zero it, nor access any field outide the control word.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists