> -----Original Message----- > From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:j...@8bytes.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:17 PM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: dw...@infradead.org; jiang....@linux.intel.com; > io...@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 -- 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/
