qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 07/25] intel_iommu: define several structs fo


From: David Kiarie
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 07/25] intel_iommu: define several structs for IOMMU IR
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:54:52 +0300

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Peter Xu <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 07:56:16AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2016-05-30 07:45, Peter Xu wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:35AM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >>>> +
>> >>>> +/* Programming format for MSI/MSI-X addresses */
>> >>>> +union VTD_IR_MSIAddress {
>> >>>> +    struct {
>> >>>> +        uint8_t __not_care:2;
>> >>>> +        uint8_t index_h:1;          /* Interrupt index bit 15 */
>> >>>> +        uint8_t sub_valid:1;        /* SHV: Sub-Handle Valid bit */
>> >>>> +        uint8_t int_mode:1;         /* Interrupt format */
>> >>>> +        uint16_t index_l:15;        /* Interrupt index bit 14-0 */
>> >>>> +        uint16_t __head:12;         /* Should always be: 0x0fee */
>> >>>> +    } QEMU_PACKED;
>> >>>> +    uint32_t data;
>> >>>> +};
>> >>>
>> >>> In a recent discussion, it was brought to my attention that you might
>> >>> have a problem with bitfields when the host cpu is not x86. Have you
>> >>> considered this ?
>> >>
>> >> In a case when say the host cpu is little endian.
>> >
>> > I assume you mean when host cpu is big endian. x86 was little endian,
>> > and I was testing on x86.
>> >
>> > I think you are right. I should do conditional byte swap for all
>> > uint{16/32/64} cases within the fields. For example, index_l field in
>> > above VTD_IR_MSIAddress. And there are several other cases that need
>> > special treatment in the patchset. Will go over and fix corresponding
>> > issues in next version.
>>
>> You actually need bit-swap with bit fields, see e.g. hw/net/vmxnet3.h.
>
> Not noticed about bit-field ordering before... So maybe I need both?

Yes, I think we will need both though, I think, byte swapping the
whole struct will break the code but swapping individual fields is
what we need.

Myself, I'm defining bitfields as below:

  struct CMDCompletionWait {

#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
    uint32_t type:4;               /* command type           */
    uint32_t reserved:8;
    uint64_t store_addr:49;        /* addr to write          */
    uint32_t completion_flush:1;   /* allow more executions  */
    uint32_t completion_int:1;     /* set MMIOWAITINT        */
    uint32_t completion_store:1;   /* write data to address  */
#else
    uint32_t completion_store:1;
    uint32_t completion_int:1;
    uint32_t completion_flush:1;
    uint64_t store_addr:49;
    uint32_t reserved:8;
    uint32_t type:4;
#endif /* __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD */

    uint64_t store_data;           /* data to write          */
if
} QEMU_PACKED;

So, the bitfields are basically aligned to a {1,2,4,8}-byte boundary.
I will have to swap store_addr,type, store_data, e.t.c.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -- peterx



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]