From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/24] xen/arm: Allow virq != irq
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:44:14 +0000
Message-ID: <1425048254.14641.218.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1421159133-31526-9-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1424447564.30924.322.camel@citrix.com> <54E76A2C.7030403@linaro.org>
	<54F08031.1070807@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YRMAJ-0006z4-Gu
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:45:19 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54F08031.1070807@linaro.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 14:33 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On 20/02/15 17:09, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 20/02/15 15:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>      action = xmalloc(struct irqaction);
> >>> -    if (!action)
> >>> +    if ( !action )
> >>> +        return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> +    info = xmalloc(struct irq_guest);
> >>
> >> FWIW you might (subject to sizing/alignment needs) be able to do
> >> 	action = _xmalloc(sizeof(struct irqaction) + sizeof(struct irq_guest);
> >> 	info = (sturct irq_guest *)(action + 1);
> >>
> >> which would save some memory overhead for free pointers etc and allow
> >> you to avoid manually managing the info.
> >>
> >> You probably won't like that though, so feel free to ignore.
> > 
> > Actually it's a good idea :). I haven't though about it.
> 
> I though about it. The pointer to irq_guest may not be correctly aligned
> with this solution, right?

It depends on sizeof(struct irqaction) (which is what I meant by
"subject to..."). t'd probably need a ROUNDUP(sizeof(foo),
pointer-alignement) in there somewhere.

> So I prefer to keep separate the allocation. We can revisit it later.

OK.