From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/i386/intel_iommu: Fix endianness problems related to VTD_IR_TableEntry
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:12:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZMpyT87CzeKTKfn7@x1n> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <231556af-02cd-a243-acdb-78cec6fd24a2@redhat.com>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 04:14:01PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 16.02, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 11:28:37AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > #if HOST_BIG_ENDIAN
> > > - uint32_t __reserved_1:8; /* Reserved 1 */
> > > - uint32_t vector:8; /* Interrupt Vector */
> > > - uint32_t irte_mode:1; /* IRTE Mode */
> > > - uint32_t __reserved_0:3; /* Reserved 0 */
> > > - uint32_t __avail:4; /* Available spaces for software */
> > > - uint32_t delivery_mode:3; /* Delivery Mode */
> > > - uint32_t trigger_mode:1; /* Trigger Mode */
> > > - uint32_t redir_hint:1; /* Redirection Hint */
> > > - uint32_t dest_mode:1; /* Destination Mode */
> > > - uint32_t fault_disable:1; /* Fault Processing Disable */
> > > - uint32_t present:1; /* Whether entry present/available */
> > > + uint64_t dest_id:32; /* Destination ID */
> > > + uint64_t __reserved_1:8; /* Reserved 1 */
> > > + uint64_t vector:8; /* Interrupt Vector */
> > > + uint64_t irte_mode:1; /* IRTE Mode */
> > > + uint64_t __reserved_0:3; /* Reserved 0 */
> > > + uint64_t __avail:4; /* Available spaces for software */
> > > + uint64_t delivery_mode:3; /* Delivery Mode */
> > > + uint64_t trigger_mode:1; /* Trigger Mode */
> > > + uint64_t redir_hint:1; /* Redirection Hint */
> > > + uint64_t dest_mode:1; /* Destination Mode */
> > > + uint64_t fault_disable:1; /* Fault Processing Disable */
> > > + uint64_t present:1; /* Whether entry present/available */
> > > #else
> > > - uint32_t present:1; /* Whether entry present/available */
> > > - uint32_t fault_disable:1; /* Fault Processing Disable */
> > > - uint32_t dest_mode:1; /* Destination Mode */
> > > - uint32_t redir_hint:1; /* Redirection Hint */
> > > - uint32_t trigger_mode:1; /* Trigger Mode */
> > > - uint32_t delivery_mode:3; /* Delivery Mode */
> > > - uint32_t __avail:4; /* Available spaces for software */
> > > - uint32_t __reserved_0:3; /* Reserved 0 */
> > > - uint32_t irte_mode:1; /* IRTE Mode */
> > > - uint32_t vector:8; /* Interrupt Vector */
> > > - uint32_t __reserved_1:8; /* Reserved 1 */
> > > + uint64_t present:1; /* Whether entry present/available */
> > > + uint64_t fault_disable:1; /* Fault Processing Disable */
> > > + uint64_t dest_mode:1; /* Destination Mode */
> > > + uint64_t redir_hint:1; /* Redirection Hint */
> > > + uint64_t trigger_mode:1; /* Trigger Mode */
> > > + uint64_t delivery_mode:3; /* Delivery Mode */
> > > + uint64_t __avail:4; /* Available spaces for software */
> > > + uint64_t __reserved_0:3; /* Reserved 0 */
> > > + uint64_t irte_mode:1; /* IRTE Mode */
> > > + uint64_t vector:8; /* Interrupt Vector */
> > > + uint64_t __reserved_1:8; /* Reserved 1 */
> > > + uint64_t dest_id:32; /* Destination ID */
> > > #endif
> > > - uint32_t dest_id; /* Destination ID */
> > > - uint16_t source_id; /* Source-ID */
> > > #if HOST_BIG_ENDIAN
> > > uint64_t __reserved_2:44; /* Reserved 2 */
> > > uint64_t sid_vtype:2; /* Source-ID Validation Type */
> > > uint64_t sid_q:2; /* Source-ID Qualifier */
> > > + uint64_t source_id:16; /* Source-ID */
> > > #else
> > > + uint64_t source_id:16; /* Source-ID */
> > > uint64_t sid_q:2; /* Source-ID Qualifier */
> > > uint64_t sid_vtype:2; /* Source-ID Validation Type */
> > > uint64_t __reserved_2:44; /* Reserved 2 */
> >
> > A quick comment before a repost: we can merge the two HOST_BIG_ENDIAN
> > blocks into one now?
>
> We could, and I also considered it while working on this. But I think it
> would rather decrease the readability of this code. These are two separete
> 64-bit fields, and you might want to compare the big endian version of a
> bitfield to the little endian version next to it. If we merge, it looks
> rather like one big 128-bitfield if you don't look carefully enough, and
> comparision gets worse. So I'd prefer to keep them separate.
We can have a comment for each uint64_t at the top, IMHO better than having
two continuous block having the same "#ifdef" which is OTOH confusing.
Not a huge deal - I saw that the new version is already there. I'll read
first. Thanks a lot for fixing these problems.
--
Peter Xu
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-02 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-02 9:28 [PATCH] hw/i386/intel_iommu: Fix endianness problems related to VTD_IR_TableEntry Thomas Huth
2023-08-02 13:35 ` Thomas Huth
2023-08-02 14:02 ` Peter Xu
2023-08-02 14:14 ` Thomas Huth
2023-08-02 15:12 ` Peter Xu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZMpyT87CzeKTKfn7@x1n \
--to=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).