Hi, On 04/11/14 15:44, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:26:50PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: >> For a GICv2 there is always only one (v)CPU involved: the one that >> does the access. On a GICv3 the access to a CPU redistributor is >> memory-mapped, but not banked, so the (v)CPU affected is determined by >> looking at the MMIO address region being accessed. >> To allow passing the affected CPU into the accessors, extend them to >> take an opaque private pointer parameter. >> For the current GICv2 emulation we ignore it and simply pass NULL >> on the call. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> > > Why does it have to be an opaque private pointer? Would it not always > be a struct vcpu * or a vcpu_id then? IIRC Marc suggested this once be more future proof. Also a pointer makes it easier to pass NULL in the GICv2 parts of the code, which makes it more obvious that this value is not used in this case. Marc, did I miss some more rationale? Does that still hold? Cheers, Andre. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
