On 12/05/2014 11:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.14 at 16:55, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
On 02.12.14 at 22:34, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
+struct xen_sysctl_iotopo {
+ uint16_t seg;
+ uint8_t bus;
+ uint8_t devfn;
+ uint32_t node;
+};
This is PCI-centric without expressing in the name or layout.
xen_sysctl_pcitopo would be a better name.
Perhaps
the first part should be a union from the very beginning?
And I wonder whether that supposed union part wouldn't be nicely
done using struct physdev_pci_device.
The do look strikingly similar ;-)
How would a union be useful here?
Additionally please add IN and OUT annotations. When I first saw
this I assumed they would all be OUT (in which case the long running
loop problem mentioned in the reply to one of the other patches
wouldn't have been there), matching their CPU counterpart...
I don't follow this. Are you saying that if ti->max_devs in patch 3/4 is
an IN (which it is) then we don't have to guard for long-running loops?
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
