This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] use of struct hvm_irq_dpci in pv guests

To: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] use of struct hvm_irq_dpci in pv guests
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:31:31 +0100
Delivery-date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:31:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The per-domain pointer to this is stored in ->arch.hvm_domain.irq.dpci,
hence suggesting that this is a HVM only field.
do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq) and domain_get_irq_dpci()
access it however without considering HVM-ness. In the course of
splitting/shrinking struct domain, I'd therefore need to know whether
this field ought to become common, or whether all accessors of the
field need to get protected by is_hvm_domain().

Thanks, Jan

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Xen-devel] use of struct hvm_irq_dpci in pv guests, Jan Beulich <=