> -----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 kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
