From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:4938 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727012AbfJaIsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:48:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9V8m7XW038428 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:48:29 -0400 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vysd3wf48-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:48:29 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:48:27 -0000 Reply-To: mimu@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC 13/37] KVM: s390: protvirt: Add interruption injection controls References: <20191024114059.102802-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20191024114059.102802-14-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Michael Mueller Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:48:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <26dfdefa-edbe-40e5-5b41-a4de86d47d15@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand , Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, gor@linux.ibm.com On 30.10.19 16:53, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> @@ -268,8 +277,16 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block { >>       __u8    oai;            /* 0x00e2 */ >>       __u8    armid;            /* 0x00e3 */ >>       __u8    reservede4[4];        /* 0x00e4 */ >> -    __u64    tecmc;            /* 0x00e8 */ >> -    __u8    reservedf0[12];        /* 0x00f0 */ >> +    union { >> +        __u64    tecmc;        /* 0x00e8 */ >> +        struct { >> +            __u16    subchannel_id;    /* 0x00e8 */ >> +            __u16    subchannel_nr;    /* 0x00ea */ >> +            __u32    io_int_parm;    /* 0x00ec */ >> +            __u32    io_int_word;    /* 0x00f0 */ >> +        }; > > I only wonder if we should give this member a fitting name, e.g., > "ioparams" Do you see a real gain for that? We have a lot of other unnamed structs defined here as well. > >> +    } __packed; >> +    __u8    reservedf4[8];        /* 0x00f4 */ >>   #define CRYCB_FORMAT_MASK 0x00000003 >>   #define CRYCB_FORMAT0 0x00000000 >>   #define CRYCB_FORMAT1 0x00000001 >> Thanks, Michael