|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] xen-hvm.c: Add support for Xen access to vmport
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 10/03/14 12:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Don Slutz wrote:
> > > On 10/03/14 05:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Don Slutz wrote:
> > > > > This adds synchronisation of the 6 vcpu registers (only 32bits of
> > > > > them) that vmport.c needs between Xen and QEMU.
> > > > >
> ...
> > > > > }
> > > > > -static void handle_ioreq(ioreq_t *req)
> > > > > +static void regs_to_cpu(XenIOState *state, vmware_ioreq_t
> > > > > *vmport_req)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + X86CPU *cpu;
> > > > > + CPUX86State *env;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!state->cpu_by_ioreq_id[0]) {
> > > > > + CPUState *cpu_state;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + CPU_FOREACH(cpu_state) {
> > > > > + state->cpu_by_ioreq_id[cpu_state->cpu_index] = cpu_state;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > This is just the initialization, isn't it?
> > > > It would be best to move it to an initialization function then.
> > > >
> > > A new initialization function would need to be added. A new call to it
> > > would
> > > need
> > > to be added (not sure where the best place is). Since the overhead here
> > > is
> > > small I went with the less intrusive change.
> > I'd prefer the initialization function if it is possible.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ok, how does:
>
>
> @@ -1023,6 +1028,11 @@ static void xen_main_loop_prepare(XenIOState *state)
> state);
>
> if (evtchn_fd != -1) {
> + CPUState *cpu_state;
> +
> + CPU_FOREACH(cpu_state) {
> + state->cpu_by_ioreq_id[cpu_state->cpu_index] = cpu_state;
> + }
> qemu_set_fd_handler(evtchn_fd, cpu_handle_ioreq, NULL, state);
> }
> }
>
> Look?
It looks fine
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |