On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:17:34AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: linux-hyperv-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <linux-hyperv-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Boqun Feng
> > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 7:40 PM
> >
> > Currently, retarget_msi_interrupt and other structures it relys on are
> > defined in pci-hyperv.c. However, those structures are actually defined
> > in Hypervisor Top-Level Functional Specification [1] and may be
> > different in sizes of fields or layout from architecture to
> > architecture. Let's move those definitions into x86's tlfs header file
> > to support virtual PCI on non-x86 architectures in the future. Note that
> > "__packed" attribute is added to these structures during the movement
> > for the same reason as we use the attribute for other TLFS structures in
> > the header file: make sure the structures meet the specification and
> > avoid anything unexpected from the compilers.
> >
> > Additionally, rename struct retarget_msi_interrupt to
> > hv_retarget_msi_interrupt for the consistent naming convention, also
> > mirroring the name in TLFS.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > b/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > +
> > +struct hv_device_interrupt_target {
> > + u32 vector;
> > + u32 flags;
> > + union {
> > + u64 vp_mask;
> > + struct hv_vpset vp_set;
> > + };
> > +} __packed;
> > +
> > +/* HvRetargetDeviceInterrupt hypercall */
>
> Reviewed-by: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
Thanks!
> Just a small thing: would it be slightly better if we change the name
> in the above line to HVCALL_RETARGET_INTERRUPT ?
>
> HVCALL_RETARGET_INTERRUPT is a define, so it may help to locate the
> actual value of the define here. And, HVCALL_RETARGET_INTERRUPT is
> used several times in the patchset so IMO we'd better always use
> the same name.
This might be a good suggestion, however, throughout the TLFS header,
camel case is more commonly used for referencing hypercall. For example:
/* HvCallSendSyntheticClusterIpi hypercall */
So I think it's better to let it as it is for this patch, and later on,
if we reach a consensus, we can convert the names all together.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Boqun
