Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 1/2] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.02.16 at 05:59, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:08 PM
>> To: Wu, Feng <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dario Faggioli
>> <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>> Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
>> <keir@xxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/2] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling
>> 
>> > @@ -160,6 +219,14 @@ struct arch_vmx_struct {
>> >      struct page_info     *vmwrite_bitmap;
>> >
>> >      struct page_info     *pml_pg;
>> > +
>> > +    /*
>> > +     * Before it is blocked, vCPU is added to the per-cpu list.
>> > +     * VT-d engine can send wakeup notification event to the
>> > +     * pCPU and wakeup the related vCPU.
>> > +     */
>> > +    struct list_head     pi_blocked_vcpu_list;
>> > +    spinlock_t           *pi_block_list_lock;
>> >  };
>> 
>> Didn't we settle on making this a struct with a "list" and a "lock"
>> member? 
> 
> I don't think so. I will change like this in the next version.
> 
>> And along those lines the local per-CPU variables added
>> to xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c would also benefit from being
>> put in a struct, making more obvious their close relationship.
> 
> ' pi_block_list_lock 'in this structure is a pointer to spinlock_t, but
> the local per-CPU lock is typeof spinlock_t instead of a pointer,
> so I cannot reuse the struct for the "list" and "lock" member.
> Do you mean I should create another structure for this two
> local per-CPU variables?

Yes, that's why I said "a struct" instead of "the same struct".

Jan


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