[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5596C521.1030005@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:23:45 +0200
From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, eric.auger@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
marc.zyngier@....com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, feng.wu@...el.com,
joro@...tes.org, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control
On 07/03/2015 07:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 03/07/2015 15:12, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> Linux IRQ and active should be okay. As to the vfio_device handle, you
>>>> should link it from the vfio_platform_device instead. And for the
>>>> vfio_platform_device, you can link it from the vfio_platform_irq instead.
>> For this last one, I don't think this is achievable since if I store the
>> vfio_platform_irq in the opaque, it matches irqs[i] of
>> vfio_platform_device and I don't have any mean to retrieve "i" when
>> calling container_of.
>
> Right, notice I said "link it":
>
> struct vfio_platform_irq *irq =
> container_of(prod, struct vfio_platform_irq, producer);
> struct vfio_platform_device *vpdev = irq->vpdev;
> struct vfio_device *vdev = vpdev->vdev;
>
> Would this be okay?
Yes that's what I did. I added the vfio_device handle in struct
vfio_platform_irq
Thanks ;-)
Have a nice WE
Eric
>
> 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