Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2 1/1] Add IOREQ_TYPE_VMWARE_PORT

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stefano Stabellini
> Sent: 06 October 2014 10:22
> To: Jan Beulich
> Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Ian Campbell; Stefano Stabellini; Andrew Cooper; Don
> Slutz; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2 1/1] Add
> IOREQ_TYPE_VMWARE_PORT
> 
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 03.10.14 at 21:27, <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > --- a/xen/include/public/hvm/ioreq.h
> > > +++ b/xen/include/public/hvm/ioreq.h
> > > @@ -85,11 +85,22 @@ struct vmware_ioreq {
> > >   };
> > >   typedef struct vmware_ioreq vmware_ioreq_t;
> > >
> > > +union union_ioreq {
> > > +    ioreq_t oreq;
> > > +    vmware_ioreq_t vreq;
> > > +};
> > > +typedef union union_ioreq union_ioreq_t;
> > > +
> > >   struct shared_iopage {
> > >       struct ioreq vcpu_ioreq[1];
> > >   };
> > >   typedef struct shared_iopage shared_iopage_t;
> > >
> > > +struct union_shared_iopage {
> > > +    union union_ioreq vcpu_ioreq[1];
> > > +};
> > > +typedef struct union_shared_iopage union_shared_iopage_t;
> >
> > I don't think either of these really need to be part of the public
> > interface.
> 
> Do you prefer this union mechanism or the original code of this patch
> 1412274977-6098-2-git-send-email-dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx?
> 
> I haven't see the QEMU code for the union approach, but both
> alternatives would probably be fine from the QEMU POV.
> 

Really? To me both seem equally horrible and unnecessary.

  Paul

> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel