[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH V1 09/16] arm/ioreq: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features
On 23.09.2020 22:16, Oleksandr wrote: > On 23.09.20 21:03, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 10/09/2020 21:22, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote: >>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx> >>> @@ -91,6 +108,28 @@ struct arch_domain >>> #endif >>> } __cacheline_aligned; >>> +enum hvm_io_completion { >>> + HVMIO_no_completion, >>> + HVMIO_mmio_completion, >>> + HVMIO_pio_completion >>> +}; >>> + >>> +struct hvm_vcpu_io { >>> + /* I/O request in flight to device model. */ >>> + enum hvm_io_completion io_completion; >>> + ioreq_t io_req; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * HVM emulation: >>> + * Linear address @mmio_gla maps to MMIO physical frame >>> @mmio_gpfn. >>> + * The latter is known to be an MMIO frame (not RAM). >>> + * This translation is only valid for accesses as per >>> @mmio_access. >>> + */ >>> + struct npfec mmio_access; >>> + unsigned long mmio_gla; >>> + unsigned long mmio_gpfn; >>> +}; >>> + >> >> Why do we need to re-define most of this? Can't this just be in common >> code? > > Jan asked almost the similar question in "[PATCH V1 02/16] xen/ioreq: > Make x86's IOREQ feature common". > Please see my answer there: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11769105/#23637511 > > Theoretically we could move this to the common code, but the question is > how to be with other struct fields the x86's struct hvm_vcpu_io > has/needs but > Arm's seems not, would it be possible to logically split struct > hvm_vcpu_io into common and arch parts? Have struct vcpu_io and struct arch_vcpu_io as a sub-part of it? Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |