RE: [v4 2/8] iommu, x86: Define new irte structure for VT-d Posted-Interrupts

From: Wu, Feng
Date: Wed Apr 01 2015 - 04:52:04 EST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:joro@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:17 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?


> Joerg

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at