On 27.05.19 14:10, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200
Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This will come in handy soon when we pull out the indicators from
virtio_ccw_device to a memory area that is shared with the hypervisor
(in particular for protected virtualization guests).
Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
@@ -338,17 +348,17 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev,
ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) thinint_area;
} else {
/* payload is the address of the indicators */
- indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(&vcdev->indicators),
+ indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(indicators(vcdev)),
GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL);
if (!indicatorp)
return;
*indicatorp = 0;
ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_SET_IND;
- ccw->count = sizeof(&vcdev->indicators);
+ ccw->count = sizeof(indicators(vcdev));
ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) indicatorp;
}
/* Deregister indicators from host. */
- vcdev->indicators = 0;
+ *indicators(vcdev) = 0;
I'm not too hot about this notation, but it's not wrong and a minor
thing :)
I don't have any better ideas :/
ccw->flags = 0;
ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw,
vcdev->is_thinint ?
Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here.
looks reasonable == r-b?
Not dependent in a sense that this patch could be made a first patch in
the series. A subsequent patch depends on it.
What is the plan with these patches? I can either pick patch 5+6 and
let them go through the virtio tree, or give my r-b and let them go
through the s390 tree. The former is probably the quicker route, but
the latter has less potential for dependency issues.
please give your r-b then for these.
Michael
