From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 19:20:15 +0200
Subject: [RFC 12/17] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding
 control
In-Reply-To: <55968A34.5010409@linaro.org>
References: <1435843047-6327-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <1435843047-6327-13-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org>
 <55953F5F.9090203@redhat.com> <55968A34.5010409@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <5596C44F.8070903@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 03/07/2015 15:12, Eric Auger wrote:
>> > Linux IRQ and active should be okay.  As to the vfio_device handle, you
>> > should link it from the vfio_platform_device instead.  And for the
>> > vfio_platform_device, you can link it from the vfio_platform_irq instead.
> For this last one, I don't think this is achievable since if I store the
> vfio_platform_irq in the opaque, it matches irqs[i] of
> vfio_platform_device and I don't have any mean to retrieve "i" when
> calling container_of.

Right, notice I said "link it":

	struct vfio_platform_irq *irq =
		container_of(prod, struct vfio_platform_irq, producer);
	struct vfio_platform_device *vpdev = irq->vpdev;
	struct vfio_device *vdev = vpdev->vdev;

Would this be okay?

Paolo