On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:51:07AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 14.03.18 at 15:04, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: > > --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c > > +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c > > @@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ void vpci_remove_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > xfree(r); > > } > > spin_unlock(&pdev->vpci->lock); > > +#ifdef __XEN__ > > + /* NB: fields below are not exposed to the user-space test harness. */ > > + xfree(pdev->vpci->msi); > > +#endif > > Would it maybe be better to add such dummy field(s), to avoid the > #ifdef here? Anyway, with or without that > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
For the msi structure that's doable, but for msix it's more complex because it includes the vpci_arch_msix_entry structure, and that would mean exposing more stuff to the user-space test harness. I would prefer to keep the current approach, I think it's safer going forward if we keep adding fields to the vpci structure. Thanks, Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
