On 03/14/2013 05:19:17 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:20:38PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 08:20:44 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >@@ -373,6 +373,9 @@ struct kvmppc_booke_debug_reg {
> > struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > ulong host_stack;
> > u32 host_pid;
> >+
> >+ u32 intr_ctrler;
> >+
>
> That abbreviation seems a bit awkward, and we should also have a
> private-data pointer.
>
> How about:
>
> u32 irq_arch;
> void *irq_priv;
Regarding the irq_priv - in my patchset the XICS code adds its own
private data pointer. That has the advantage that it can be strongly
typed, and if it is non-NULL then I know it points to XICS data, not
the data for some other type of controller. As long as we are only
going to have a small number of IRQ architectures then it's feasible
to allow each to have its own data pointer, and we get the advantages
of strong typing.
OK.
> >+ switch (cap->args[0]) {
> >+ case 0: /* no interrupt controller */
> >+ break;
>
> s/0/KVM_IRQ_ARCH_NONE/
>
> ...at least so that this patch makes it clear where other type ids
> should
> be defined.
OK, whatever.
Well, it wouldn't be good for MPIC to end up defined in one place and
XICS in another, especially if adding a definition is how new IDs are
allocated...
-Scott
--
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
