Hi,
On Monday, June 24, 2024 5:06:42 PM GMT+5:30 Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> [...]
> > > > /* Shadow virtqueue to relay notifications */
> > > > typedef struct VhostShadowVirtqueue {
> > > >
> > > > + /* Virtio queue shadowing */
> > > > + VirtQueue *vq;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Virtio device */
> > > > + VirtIODevice *vdev;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* SVQ vring descriptors state */
> > > > + SVQDescState *desc_state;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Backup next field for each descriptor so we can recover
> > > > securely,
> > > > not + * needing to trust the device access.
> > > > + */
> > > > + uint16_t *desc_next;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Next free descriptor */
> > > > + uint16_t free_head;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Size of SVQ vring free descriptors */
> > > > + uint16_t num_free;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why the reorder of all of the previous members?
> >
> > I was thinking of placing all the members that are common to packed and
> > split vring above the union while leaving the remaining members below the
> > union. I did this based on our discussion here [1]. I don't think this
> > reordering serves any purpose implementation-wise. Please let me know if
> > I should revert this change.
>
> I'm not against the change, but removing superfluous changes helps the
> reviewing. If you send the reordering, please use a separate patch so
> it's easier to review.
Understood, I'll keep this in mind when sending patches.
Thanks,
Sahil
