From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Halil Pasic Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20190527135706.34837062.pasic@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190523162209.9543-1-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190523162209.9543-7-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190527130028.62e1f7d7.cohuck@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190527130028.62e1f7d7.cohuck@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Vasily Gorbik , Linux-S390 Mailing List , Thomas Huth , Claudio Imbrenda , KVM Mailing List , Sebastian Ott , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Pierre Morel , Farhan Ali , Heiko Carstens , Eric Farman , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Christoph Hellwig , Christian Borntraeger , Michael Mueller , Viktor Mihajlovski , Janosch Frank List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200 Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200 > Michael Mueller wrote: > > > From: Halil Pasic > > > > This will come in handy soon when we pull out the indicators from > > virtio_ccw_device to a memory area that is shared with the hypervisor > > (in particular for protected virtualization guests). > > > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic > > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel > > --- > > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > @@ -338,17 +348,17 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) thinint_area; > > } else { > > /* payload is the address of the indicators */ > > - indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(&vcdev->indicators), > > + indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(indicators(vcdev)), > > GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!indicatorp) > > return; > > *indicatorp = 0; > > ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_SET_IND; > > - ccw->count = sizeof(&vcdev->indicators); > > + ccw->count = sizeof(indicators(vcdev)); > > ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) indicatorp; > > } > > /* Deregister indicators from host. */ > > - vcdev->indicators = 0; > > + *indicators(vcdev) = 0; > > I'm not too hot about this notation, but it's not wrong and a minor > thing :) I don't have any better ideas :/ > > > ccw->flags = 0; > > ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw, > > vcdev->is_thinint ? > > Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here. > looks reasonable == r-b? Not dependent in a sense that this patch could be made a first patch in the series. A subsequent patch depends on it. Regards, Halil