On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200 Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200 > Michael Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Halil Pasic <[email protected]> > > > > This will come in handy soon when we pull out the indicators from > > virtio_ccw_device to a memory area that is shared with the hypervisor > > (in particular for protected virtualization guests). > > > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 40 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > @@ -338,17 +348,17 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct > > virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, > > ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) thinint_area; > > } else { > > /* payload is the address of the indicators */ > > - indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(&vcdev->indicators), > > + indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(indicators(vcdev)), > > GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!indicatorp) > > return; > > *indicatorp = 0; > > ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_SET_IND; > > - ccw->count = sizeof(&vcdev->indicators); > > + ccw->count = sizeof(indicators(vcdev)); > > ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) indicatorp; > > } > > /* Deregister indicators from host. */ > > - vcdev->indicators = 0; > > + *indicators(vcdev) = 0; > > I'm not too hot about this notation, but it's not wrong and a minor > thing :) I don't have any better ideas :/ > > > ccw->flags = 0; > > ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw, > > vcdev->is_thinint ? > > Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here. > looks reasonable == r-b? Not dependent in a sense that this patch could be made a first patch in the series. A subsequent patch depends on it. Regards, Halil _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
