From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B6FC4361B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3BD221F7 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:35:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2F3BD221F7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.47266.83683 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kmZOn-0007Vt-Il; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:35:09 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 47266.83683; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:35:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kmZOn-0007Vm-Fn; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:35:09 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 47266; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:35:08 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kmZOm-0007Vh-IG for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:35:08 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 3b82cf30-bbb9-4334-b346-c157f5a3a98a; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBDCEAD21; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:35:06 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 3b82cf30-bbb9-4334-b346-c157f5a3a98a X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1607420106; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MUQbzhw7NK6yRCTLkT/kEn3M96AjRwg+fxEt7cvqeZ0=; b=BwDGNAHLlAuGPVYvIV/J7ZfDBc40UQgWrrp1I3poRi1NwJtKuj8+Fekh/N17T8jaYBnvjd 0tPGLup5/wD0gUlqBhFgXAxkiZN9vptmxAszqeej3h/LaWfASd6z7iafuzNV5BDuojNymT d5oaRKvzzg2X26QYKtuHFUo0eJeKdHU= Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 11/23] xen/ioreq: Move x86's io_completion/io_req fields to struct vcpu To: paul@xen.org, 'Oleksandr' Cc: 'Oleksandr Tyshchenko' , 'Andrew Cooper' , =?UTF-8?B?J1JvZ2VyIFBhdSBNb25uw6kn?= , 'Wei Liu' , 'George Dunlap' , 'Ian Jackson' , 'Julien Grall' , 'Stefano Stabellini' , 'Jun Nakajima' , 'Kevin Tian' , 'Julien Grall' , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org References: <1606732298-22107-1-git-send-email-olekstysh@gmail.com> <1606732298-22107-12-git-send-email-olekstysh@gmail.com> <742899b6-964b-be75-affc-31342c07133a@suse.com> <0d3c01d6cd37$0c013770$2403a650$@xen.org> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:35:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0d3c01d6cd37$0c013770$2403a650$@xen.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08.12.2020 08:52, Paul Durrant wrote: >> From: Oleksandr >> Sent: 07 December 2020 21:00 >> >> On 07.12.20 14:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 30.11.2020 11:31, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h >>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h >>>> @@ -145,6 +145,21 @@ void evtchn_destroy_final(struct domain *d); /* from complete_domain_destroy >> */ >>>> >>>> struct waitqueue_vcpu; >>>> >>>> +enum io_completion { >>>> + IO_no_completion, >>>> + IO_mmio_completion, >>>> + IO_pio_completion, >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86 >>>> + IO_realmode_completion, >>>> +#endif >>>> +}; >>> I'm not entirely happy with io_ / IO_ here - they seem a little >>> too generic. How about ioreq_ / IOREQ_ respectively? >> >> I am OK, would like to hear Paul's opinion on both questions. >> > > No, I think the 'IO_' prefix is better. They relate to a field in the vcpu_io struct. An alternative might be 'VIO_'... > >> >>> >>>> +struct vcpu_io { >>>> + /* I/O request in flight to device model. */ >>>> + enum io_completion completion; > > ... in which case, you could also name the enum 'vio_completion'. I'd be okay with these - still better than just "io". Jan