On 19.07.2019 17:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/07/2019 17:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> At the same time restrict its scope to just the single source file
>> actually using it, and abstract accesses by introducing a union of
>> pointers. (A union of the actual table entries is not used to make it
>> impossible to [wrongly, once the 128-bit form gets added] perform
>> pointer arithmetic / array accesses on derived types.)
>>
>> Also move away from updating the entries piecemeal: Construct a full new
>> entry, and write it out.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>
> I'm still not entirely convinced by extra union and containerof(), but
> the result looks correct.
And I'm still open to going the other way, if you're convinced that
in update_intremap_entry() this
struct irte_basic basic = {
.flds = {
.remap_en = true,
.int_type = int_type,
.dm = dest_mode,
.dest = dest,
.vector = vector,
}
};
(and similarly then for the 128-bit form, and of course .flds
inserted at other use sites) is overall better than the current
variant.
> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Thanks, Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
