From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysctl/libxl: Add interface for
 returning IO topology data
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:10:20 -0500
Message-ID: <5481E6FC.1070905@oracle.com>
References: <1417556050-23364-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<1417556050-23364-3-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<5481E39B020000780004D450@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<5481E564020000780004D47B@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <5481E564020000780004D47B@mail.emea.novell.com>
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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, dario.faggioli@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, ufimtseva@gmail.com, keir@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 12/05/2014 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 05.12.14 at 16:55, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 02.12.14 at 22:34, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> +struct xen_sysctl_iotopo {
>>> +    uint16_t seg;
>>> +    uint8_t bus;
>>> +    uint8_t devfn;
>>> +    uint32_t node;
>>> +};
>> This is PCI-centric without expressing in the name or layout.

xen_sysctl_pcitopo would be a better name.

>>   Perhaps
>> the first part should be a union from the very beginning?
> And I wonder whether that supposed union part wouldn't be nicely
> done using struct physdev_pci_device.

The do look strikingly similar ;-)

How would a union be useful here?

>
> Additionally please add IN and OUT annotations. When I first saw
> this I assumed they would all be OUT (in which case the long running
> loop problem mentioned in the reply to one of the other patches
> wouldn't have been there), matching their CPU counterpart...

I don't follow this. Are you saying that if ti->max_devs in patch 3/4 is 
an IN (which it is) then we don't have to guard for long-running loops?

-boris