From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wu, Feng" Subject: Re: [RFC v1 03/15] vmx: Extend struct pi_desc to support VT-d Posted-Interrupts Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:32:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1427286717-4093-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <1427286717-4093-4-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <551451CC.70106@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <551451CC.70106@citrix.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" Cc: "Zhang, Yang Z" , "Wu, Feng" , "Tian, Kevin" , "keir@xen.org" , "JBeulich@suse.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:37 AM > To: Wu, Feng; xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Cc: Zhang, Yang Z; Tian, Kevin; keir@xen.org; JBeulich@suse.com > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v1 03/15] vmx: Extend struct pi_desc to support > VT-d Posted-Interrupts > > On 25/03/15 12:31, Feng Wu wrote: > > Extend struct pi_desc according to VT-d Posted-Interrupts Spec. > > > > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu > > --- > > xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h > b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h > > index 6fce6aa..9631461 100644 > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h > > @@ -76,8 +76,20 @@ struct vmx_domain { > > > > struct pi_desc { > > DECLARE_BITMAP(pir, NR_VECTORS); > > - u32 control; > > - u32 rsvd[7]; > > + union { > > + struct > > + { > > + u64 on : 1, > > Could you put a comment on each line giving the non-abreviated name for > the fields, similar to ept_entry_t. Good sugguestion! > > > + sn : 1, > > + rsvd_1 : 13, > > + ndm : 1, > > Which revision of the spec is this from? The latest spec linked from > your covering letter still doesn't identify this 'ndm' field. Oh, 'ndm' means 'Notification Destination Mode' in the earlier version, However, in the latest Spec, notification event is force to be delivered in physical mode, so this field is not needed. In fact, in my patch, I also set 'ndm' to physical mode. Anyway, I will change it. Thanks for the finding. Thanks, Feng > > ~Andrew > > > + nv : 8, > > + rsvd_2 : 8, > > + ndst : 32; > > + }; > > + u64 control; > > + }; > > + u32 rsvd[6]; > > } __attribute__ ((aligned (64))); > > > > #define ept_get_wl(ept) ((ept)->ept_wl)