On 14/03/2025 8:56 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2025 09:07, Andriy Sultanov wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 19:59, Jason Andryuk <jason.andr...@amd.com> wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-13 14:57, Andrii Sultanov wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu.h
>>>> @@ -77,8 +77,14 @@ struct amd_iommu {
>>>> struct list_head list;
>>>> spinlock_t lock; /* protect iommu */
>>>>
>>>> - u16 seg;
>>>> - u16 bdf;
>>>> + union {
>>>> + struct {
>>>> + uint16_t bdf;
>>>> + uint16_t seg;
>>> Are these still needed by the end of this patch?
>> Yes - otherwise the patch would be larger as bdf and seg would be one
>> namespace deeper - /iommu->seg/iommu->sbdf.seg/
> This kind of union is fragile. Hence we want to avoid it, even if this means
> an overall larger diff.
This is my suggestion, and it's the pattern used in struct pci_dev.
pci_sbdf_t is nice for code generation, but it's not great for source
verbosity.
~Andrew
