From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Haitao Shan <maillists.shan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: use of struct hvm_irq_dpci in pv guests
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:02:49 +0800
Message-ID: <BANLkTinab3aJwZHFu0qk8J6_faRuaM8UaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D94904302000078000395FA@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0074078274=="
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D94904302000078000395FA@vpn.id2.novell.com>
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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

--===============0074078274==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520e81b4acb0a04a16854d8

--bcaec520e81b4acb0a04a16854d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi, Jan,

I think it should be protected by is_hvm_domain(). Anyway, I have saw your
patches already in upstream Xen.

Shan Haitao

2011/3/31 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

--bcaec520e81b4acb0a04a16854d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>Hi, Jan,</div><div>=A0</div><div>I think it should be protected by is_=
hvm_domain(). Anyway, I have saw your patches already in upstream Xen.</div=
><div>=A0</div><div>Shan Haitao<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">201=
1/3/31 Jan Beulich <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:JBeulich@novell.=
com">JBeulich@novell.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-l=
eft-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: s=
olid;" class=3D"gmail_quote">The per-domain pointer to this is stored in -&=
gt;arch.hvm_domain.irq.dpci,<br>

hence suggesting that this is a HVM only field.<br>
do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq) and domain_get_irq_dpci()<br>
access it however without considering HVM-ness. In the course of<br>
splitting/shrinking struct domain, I&#39;d therefore need to know whether<b=
r>
this field ought to become common, or whether all accessors of the<br>
field need to get protected by is_hvm_domain().<br>
<br>
Thanks, Jan<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Xen-devel mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com">Xen-devel@lists.xensource.=
com</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel" target=3D"_blank">http://l=
ists.xensource.com/xen-devel</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>

--bcaec520e81b4acb0a04a16854d8--


--===============0074078274==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

--===============0074078274==--