> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: 19 November 2020 16:41 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Durrant, Paul <[email protected]>; 'Wei Liu' <[email protected]>; 'Andrew > Cooper' > <[email protected]>; 'Roger Pau Monné' <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH 03/10] viridian: introduce a per-cpu > hypercall_vpmask and accessor > functions... > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open > attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > On 19.11.2020 17:02, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected] > >> Sent: 12 November 2020 08:46 > >> > >> On 11.11.2020 21:07, Paul Durrant wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian/viridian.c > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian/viridian.c > >>> @@ -507,15 +507,41 @@ void viridian_domain_deinit(struct domain *d) > >>> XFREE(d->arch.hvm.viridian); > >>> } > >>> > >>> +struct hypercall_vpmask { > >>> + DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, HVM_MAX_VCPUS); > >>> +}; > >>> + > >>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct hypercall_vpmask, hypercall_vpmask); > >>> + > >>> +static void vpmask_empty(struct hypercall_vpmask *vpmask) > >> > >> const? > > > > Yes, I suppose that's ook for all these since the outer struct is > > not changing... It's a bit misleading though. > > I'd be curious to learn about that "misleading" aspect. >
Because the function is modifying (zero-ing) the bitmap... so implying the mask is const is measleading. Paul > Jan
