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.
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
