>>> On 23.02.16 at 05:59, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:08 PM >> To: Wu, Feng <feng...@intel.com> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Dario Faggioli >> <dario.faggi...@citrix.com>; George Dunlap <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>; >> Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com>; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser >> <k...@xen.org> >> 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@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
