On Mo, 2015-06-29 at 08:48 -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53:25AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > For virtio 1.0 support we will need more state than just the (legacy
> > mode) ioaddr for each virtio-pci device. Prepare for that by adding
> > a new struct for it. For now it carries the ioaddr only.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > src/hw/virtio-blk.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> > src/hw/virtio-pci.c | 15 +++++++++------
> > src/hw/virtio-pci.h | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > src/hw/virtio-ring.c | 4 ++--
> > src/hw/virtio-ring.h | 3 ++-
> > src/hw/virtio-scsi.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 6 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/hw/virtio-blk.c b/src/hw/virtio-blk.c
> > index 15ac171..13cf09a 100644
> > --- a/src/hw/virtio-blk.c
> > +++ b/src/hw/virtio-blk.c
> > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
> > struct virtiodrive_s {
> > struct drive_s drive;
> > struct vring_virtqueue *vq;
> > - u16 ioaddr;
> > + struct vp_device *vp;
> > };
>
> Is there a reason to make this a pointer as opposed to just placing
> the vp_device struct directly in struct virtiodrive_s?
That'll work too, both blk and scsi have a struct where we can place
vp_device inside. I'll change it for v2.
cheers,
Gerd
