From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: use of struct hvm_irq_dpci in pv guests
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:31:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4D94904302000078000395FA@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

The per-domain pointer to this is stored in ->arch.hvm_domain.irq.dpci,
hence suggesting that this is a HVM only field.
do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq) and domain_get_irq_dpci()
access it however without considering HVM-ness. In the course of
splitting/shrinking struct domain, I'd therefore need to know whether
this field ought to become common, or whether all accessors of the
field need to get protected by is_hvm_domain().

Thanks, Jan