On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 04:42:13PM +0000, Sunil Muthuswamy wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * struct hv_msi_desc3 - 1.3 version of hv_msi_desc
> > > + * Everything is the same as in 'hv_msi_desc2' except that the size
> > > + * of the 'vector_count' field is larger to support bigger vector
> > > + * values. For ex: LPI vectors on ARM.
> > > + */
> > > +struct hv_msi_desc3 {
> > > + u32 vector;
> > > + u8 delivery_mode;
> > > + u8 reserved;
> > > + u16 vector_count;
> > > + u16 processor_count;
> > > + u16 processor_array[32];
> > > +} __packed;
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * struct tran_int_desc
> > > * @reserved: unused, padding
> > > @@ -383,6 +402,12 @@ struct pci_create_interrupt2 {
> > > struct hv_msi_desc2 int_desc;
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > +struct pci_create_interrupt3 {
> > > + struct pci_message message_type;
> > > + union win_slot_encoding wslot;
> > > + struct hv_msi_desc3 int_desc;
> > > +} __packed;
> > > +
> > > struct pci_delete_interrupt {
> > > struct pci_message message_type;
> > > union win_slot_encoding wslot;
> > > @@ -1334,26 +1359,55 @@ static u32 hv_compose_msi_req_v1(
> > > return sizeof(*int_pkt);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void hv_compose_msi_req_get_cpu(struct cpumask *affinity, int *cpu,
> > > + u16 *count)
> >
> > Isn't count redundant here? I don't see how this can be used safely for
> > passing back more than 1 cpu, since if cpu is pointing to an array, its
> > size is not specified.
> >
> > Wei.
>
> Yes, it is at the moment. But, the function can be extended in the future to take
> a size as well. But, it will always be 1 and I preferred keeping that information
> with the implementation. If you have preference, I can hard code that in the
> caller. It seems fine for me either ways.
Since this is not too much trouble I would rather you remove count and
then introduce it when it is needed.
Wei.
>
> - Sunil
