Hi Christoffer, On 06/11/14 11:21, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:26:35PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> Please review and test. >>> I would be grateful for people to test for GICv2 regressions also >>> (so on a GICv2 host with current kvmtool/qemu), as there is quite >>> some refactoring on that front. >>> >> So looking at the final result, we have a very strange flow with the >> vgic_create() and kvm_vgic_create() functions. I lost track in all the >> rewrite patches how this happened exactly, but what I think you want to >> end up with is: >> >> one exported function: >> int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type); >> >> which calls a static function: >> static int vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type); >> >> or simply inline the static one in the exported one, I can't seem to >> find other callers. >> > Strike that, my cscope setup was messed up. > > What I think you want is a static vgic_v3_create in vgic-v3-emul.c that > digs out the struct kvm pointer from the struct kvm_device and calls > kvm_vgic_create() and also just copy that single kfree(dev) line into > vgic_v3_destroy in vgic-v3-emul.c and the same for v2. So you want to remove vgic_destroy() and vgic_create() from vgic.c and vgic.h and use a static version of it in vgic-v[23]-emul.c instead? To avoid the two prototypes and make the declaration of the struct kvm_device_ops look nicer? Did I got this right? I did that now, it looks a bit neater, at the cost of small code duplication of admittedly trivial code. So as long as there isn't something added to those functions, that's probably fine. So I will include it in the next version. Cheers, Andre. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
