Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5 09/10] xen/arm: make domain_max_vcpus return value from vgic_ops

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chen,

On 31/05/2015 16:31, Chen Baozi wrote:
> > On May 31, 2015, at 21:35, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +
> > >   #define NR_GIC_LOCAL_IRQS  NR_LOCAL_IRQS
> > >   #define NR_GIC_SGI         16
> > >   #define MAX_RDIST_COUNT    4
> > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/vgic.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/vgic.h
> > > index 2f413e1..1157b04 100644
> > > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/vgic.h
> > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/vgic.h
> > > @@ -110,6 +110,8 @@ struct vgic_ops {
> > >       struct vcpu *(*get_target_vcpu)(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int irq);
> > >       /* vGIC sysreg emulation */
> > >       int (*emulate_sysreg)(struct cpu_user_regs *regs, union hsr hsr);
> > > +    /* Get the maximum number of vCPU supported */
> > > +    int (*get_max_vcpus)(void);
> > Why did you create a function? The value never change so a field value would have been 
> > better…
> But is it appropriate that we define a field value in a struct called vgic_ops? 
> I
> thought ‘XXX_ops’ refers to a struct that is made up by function points. (FIXME)
Well if the only issue if the name, please rename the structure. IHMO, 
the name is fine for me, I will let Ian & Stefano decides about it.
As the vGIC is always supporting N cpus and will never change, it's 
pointless to use a function (thinking about the "cost" vs access an field).
Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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