On 19.11.2020 17:44, Durrant, Paul wrote: >> -----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.
Oh, I was mislead by the name then; should have looked at the return type (which I was implying to be bool, when it's void). Please disregard my request(s) in such case(s). Jan
