On 31.10.19 09:48, Michael Mueller wrote:
>
>
> On 30.10.19 16:53, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> @@ -268,8 +277,16 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>>> __u8 oai; /* 0x00e2 */
>>> __u8 armid; /* 0x00e3 */
>>> __u8 reservede4[4]; /* 0x00e4 */
>>> - __u64 tecmc; /* 0x00e8 */
>>> - __u8 reservedf0[12]; /* 0x00f0 */
>>> + union {
>>> + __u64 tecmc; /* 0x00e8 */
>>> + struct {
>>> + __u16 subchannel_id; /* 0x00e8 */
>>> + __u16 subchannel_nr; /* 0x00ea */
>>> + __u32 io_int_parm; /* 0x00ec */
>>> + __u32 io_int_word; /* 0x00f0 */
>>> + };
>>
>> I only wonder if we should give this member a fitting name, e.g.,
>> "ioparams"
>
> Do you see a real gain for that? We have a lot of other unnamed structs
> defined here as well.
I was wondering if we could just copy the whole struct when delivering
the interrupt.
You could even reuse "struct kvm_s390_io_info" here to make that more
clear.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
