Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 08/24] xen/arm: Allow virq != irq

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 28/01/15 16:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> >> index 25ecf1d..830832c 100644
> >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> >> @@ -31,6 +31,13 @@
> >>  static unsigned int local_irqs_type[NR_LOCAL_IRQS];
> >>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(local_irqs_type_lock);
> >>  
> >> +/* Describe an IRQ assigned to a guest */
> >> +struct irq_guest
> >> +{
> >> +    struct domain *d;
> >> +    unsigned int virq;
> >> +};
> > 
> > I would prefer if you didn't use dev_id for this and just added a virq
> > field to irqaction.
> 
> We already talked about it on v2. You were fine with the idea and acked
> the patch. Although, I haven't add your acked-by here because of the new
> changes in the code.

It is good to be consistent :-D


> Here my answer to the same question on v2:
> 
> "I though about it. If we add another field in arch_irq_desc, we will
> likely use more memory than xmalloc. This is because most of the
> platform doesn't use 1024 interrupts but about 256 interrupts.
> 
> As the new field will be a pointer (on ARM64, 8 bytes), that would make
> Xen use statically about 8K more.
> 
> We could allocate irq_desc dynamically during Xen boot."

I remember now. Go ahead and add back my ack.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel