RE: [v3 23/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU is preempted

From: Wu, Feng
Date: Thu Dec 18 2014 - 21:10:06 EST




> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paolo Bonzini
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:32 PM
> To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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

Yes, this is also a good idea. Thanks!

Thanks,
Feng

>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/