Avi Kivity wrote:
> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> +
>> +struct _iosignalfd {
>>
>
> Why the underscore? It's unorthodox for a structure.
I tend to do that to denote "this is a private structure", but it makes
more sense if we are building a factory interface for a corresponding
public version of the structure of the same name. In this case, I do
not think I was using that pattern, but old habits die hard. ;) I will
get rid of this extra underscore in the next rev.
>
>
>> + u64 cookie;
>> + u64 addr;
>> + size_t length;
>> + struct file *file;
>> + struct list_head list;
>> + struct kvm_io_device dev;
>> +};
>>
>
> How will that work with multiple identical addresses and different
> cookies? Will the code iterate over all of them and just fire for one?
Yeah, primarily because I think the io_bus code will stop once it finds
the first in_range() match. But I put this logic in anyway in
preparation for the future when we may perhaps support such a notion
(similar to what you had me do with the irqfd side).
-Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
