Hi Paolo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:14 PM > To: Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) <Jianyong.Wu@xxxxxxx>; > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yangbo.lu@xxxxxxx; john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx; > tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx; maz@xxxxxxxxxx; > richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@xxxxxxx>; > will@xxxxxxxxxx; Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve Capper > <Steve.Capper@xxxxxxx>; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China) > <Kaly.Xin@xxxxxxx>; Justin He (Arm Technology China) > <Justin.He@xxxxxxx>; nd <nd@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64 > > On 16/10/19 09:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 16/10/19 05:52, Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) wrote: > >> This func used only by kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock and nothing to do with > >> kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn. Also it can be merged into > >> kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock. > >> > > > > Your patches also have no user for kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock, so you can > > remove it. > > Nevermind. I misread patch 2. However, to remove the confusion, can you > rename kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn to kvm_arch_ptp_get_crosststamp? > the suffix of this function name is reserved from its arch-independent caller ptp_kvm_get_time_fn, so if I change this function name It will be better change them whole. I think "ptp_get_crosststamp" is a better suffix. Thanks Jianyong > Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
