Re: [RFC PATCH 10/13] x86/uintr: Introduce user IPI sender syscalls
From: Sohil Mehta <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-28 18:02:05
Also in:
linux-api, linux-kselftest, lkml
From: Sohil Mehta <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-28 18:02:05
Also in:
linux-api, linux-kselftest, lkml
On 9/23/2021 5:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 01:01:29PM -0700, Sohil Mehta wrote:quoted
+/* User Interrupt Target Table Entry (UITTE) */ +struct uintr_uitt_entry { + u8 valid; /* bit 0: valid, bit 1-7: reserved */Do you check that the other bits are set to 0?
I don't have a check but kzalloc() in alloc_uitt() should set it to 0.
quoted
+ u8 user_vec; + u8 reserved[6];What is this reserved for?
This is hardware defined structure as well. I should probably mention this it in the comment above.
quoted
+ u64 target_upid_addr;If this is a pointer, why not say it is a pointer?
I used a u64 to get the size and alignment of this structure as required by the hardware. I wasn't sure if using a struct upid * would complicate that. Also this field is never used as a pointer by the kernel. It is only used to program an entry that is read by the hardware. Is this reasonable or would you still prefer a pointer?
quoted
+} __packed __aligned(16); + +struct uintr_uitt_ctx { + struct uintr_uitt_entry *uitt; + /* Protect UITT */ + spinlock_t uitt_lock; + refcount_t refs;Again, a kref please.
Will do. Thanks, Sohil