[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/12] pci: introduce a devfn field to pci_sbdf_t
>>> On 06.06.19 at 11:50, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Roger Pau Monne >> Sent: 06 June 2019 10:02 >> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>; >> Konrad > Rzeszutek Wilk >> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew > Cooper >> <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tim >> (Xen.org) > <tim@xxxxxxx>; Julien >> Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau >> Monne > <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/12] pci: introduce a devfn field to > pci_sbdf_t >> >> This is equivalent to the current extfunc field in term of contents. >> >> Switch the two current users of extfunc to use devfn instead for >> correctness. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Requested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> Changes since v1: >> - New in this version. >> --- >> NB: Paul suggested to name the function field fn instead of func, so >> that it would match the naming of the devfn field. Sadly the func >> field cannot be aliased to another field using a union because it's a >> bit field, so the only option is to rename func to fn. > > Is that true? Can you not do something like... > > union { > struct { > uint8_t func : 3, > dev : 5; > }; > struct { > uint8_t fn : 3, > pad : 5; And the "pad" field here wouldn't really be necessary. Is there a reason "func" needs to be kept? If so, is there a plan to phase out its use? If so, perhaps fn and dev should be grouped together, and func should become the (temporary) alias? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |