On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 01:08:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 13/06/2017 21:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >> @@ -101,16 +101,18 @@ static void hv_test_dev_control(void *opaque, hwaddr > >> addr, uint64_t data, > >> uint8_t sint = data & 0xFF; > >> uint8_t vcpu_id = (data >> 8ULL) & 0xFF; > > > > vcpu_id risks being confused KVM's vcpu_id (which is the CPU APIC > > ID in x86). If you are already touching this code, this could be > > renamed to vp_index to avoid confusion. > > Actually the VP_INDEX is _also_ the vcpu_id. Should we just document > that KVM makes the VP_INDEX equal to the CPU APIC id, and adjust patch 5 > accordingly?
I think here it makes sense to follow Eduardo's suggestion because this code doesn't need to know how VP_INDEX is defined. The real matter is discussed in patch 5, yes. Thanks, Roman.
