On 31.10.19 10:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.10.19 09:48, Michael Mueller wrote:
On 30.10.19 16:53, David Hildenbrand wrote:
@@ -268,8 +277,16 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
__u8 oai; /* 0x00e2 */
__u8 armid; /* 0x00e3 */
__u8 reservede4[4]; /* 0x00e4 */
- __u64 tecmc; /* 0x00e8 */
- __u8 reservedf0[12]; /* 0x00f0 */
+ union {
+ __u64 tecmc; /* 0x00e8 */
+ struct {
+ __u16 subchannel_id; /* 0x00e8 */
+ __u16 subchannel_nr; /* 0x00ea */
+ __u32 io_int_parm; /* 0x00ec */
+ __u32 io_int_word; /* 0x00f0 */
+ };
I only wonder if we should give this member a fitting name, e.g.,
"ioparams"
Do you see a real gain for that? We have a lot of other unnamed structs
defined here as well.
I was wondering if we could just copy the whole struct when delivering
the interrupt.
You could even reuse "struct kvm_s390_io_info" here to make that more
clear.
I want to keep it the way it is to have the fields in the SCB
declaration explicit.
Thanks,
Michael
