From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753225AbbDAIv6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 04:51:58 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:52815 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753134AbbDAIvw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 04:51:52 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,503,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="701369704" From: "Wu, Feng" To: Joerg Roedel CC: "dwmw2@infradead.org" , "jiang.liu@linux.intel.com" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Wu, Feng" Subject: RE: [v4 2/8] iommu, x86: Define new irte structure for VT-d Posted-Interrupts Thread-Topic: [v4 2/8] iommu, x86: Define new irte structure for VT-d Posted-Interrupts Thread-Index: AQHQa8XFs9Ev9eFa6kateke7rptZ35032Qgg Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:51:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1422864424-19411-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <1422864424-19411-3-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com> <20150323115754.GN4441@8bytes.org> <20150331151643.GF22683@8bytes.org> In-Reply-To: <20150331151643.GF22683@8bytes.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:joro@8bytes.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:17 PM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org; jiang.liu@linux.intel.com; > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [v4 2/8] iommu, x86: Define new irte structure for VT-d > Posted-Interrupts > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:32:01AM +0000, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > I think it is better to put this as a union into struct irte. It saves > > > memory and unnecessary casting in later patches. > > > > Thanks for the comments! > > Thinking more about this, I think its probably fine to keep the two > versions of the irte seperate like in this patch-set. It allows to > update the non-posted irte when the posted irte is active at the moment > and makes the transition between both irte variants easier. > > But what I still don't like is the type casting necessary when calling > modify_irte(). Can you abstract this and put the decission whether irte > or irte_pi is set active into modify_irte? It required to change the > interface of modify_irte, but that should be easy. > Sound good! Then we can keep the difference inside modify_irte(). BTW, could you please have a look at other patches in this series? Thanks, Feng > > Joerg