On 19.11.2020 17:44, Durrant, Paul wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> Sent: 19 November 2020 16:41
>> To: p...@xen.org
>> Cc: Durrant, Paul <pdurr...@amazon.co.uk>; 'Wei Liu' <w...@xen.org>; 'Andrew
>> Cooper'
>> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; 'Roger Pau Monné' <roger....@citrix.com>;
>> xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH 03/10] viridian: introduce a per-cpu
>> hypercall_vpmask and accessor
>> functions...
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click links or open
>> attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19.11.2020 17:02, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com
>>>> Sent: 12 November 2020 08:46
>>>>
>>>> On 11.11.2020 21:07, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian/viridian.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian/viridian.c
>>>>> @@ -507,15 +507,41 @@ void viridian_domain_deinit(struct domain *d)
>>>>> XFREE(d->arch.hvm.viridian);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +struct hypercall_vpmask {
>>>>> + DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, HVM_MAX_VCPUS);
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct hypercall_vpmask, hypercall_vpmask);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void vpmask_empty(struct hypercall_vpmask *vpmask)
>>>>
>>>> const?
>>>
>>> Yes, I suppose that's ook for all these since the outer struct is
>>> not changing... It's a bit misleading though.
>>
>> I'd be curious to learn about that "misleading" aspect.
>>
>
> Because the function is modifying (zero-ing) the bitmap... so implying
> the mask is const is measleading.
Oh, I was mislead by the name then; should have looked at the return
type (which I was implying to be bool, when it's void). Please
disregard my request(s) in such case(s).
Jan
