On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 03:25:37AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 5:03 AM
> >
> > @@ -1303,8 +1303,9 @@ struct vfio_iommu_type1_info {
> > __u32 flags;
> > #define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES (1 << 0) /* supported page sizes info
> > */
> > #define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_CAPS (1 << 1) /* Info supports caps */
> > - __u64 iova_pgsizes; /* Bitmap of supported page sizes */
> > + __aligned_u64 iova_pgsizes; /* Bitmap of supported page
> > sizes */
> > __u32 cap_offset; /* Offset within info struct of first cap */
> > + __u32 reserved;
>
> isn't this conflicting with the new 'pad' field introduced in your another
> patch " [PATCH v3] vfio: align capability structures"?
>
> @@ -1304,6 +1305,7 @@ struct vfio_iommu_type1_info {
> #define VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_CAPS (1 << 1) /* Info supports caps */
> __u64 iova_pgsizes; /* Bitmap of supported page sizes */
> __u32 cap_offset; /* Offset within info struct of first cap */
> + __u32 pad;
> };
Yes, I will rebase this series when "[PATCH v3] vfio: align capability
structures" is merged. I see the __aligned_u64 as a separate issue and
don't want to combine the patch series.
Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
