On 17.06.14 22:36, mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:05 PM
To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
Cc: kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-
dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation
condition on vcpu schedule
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 15:02 -0500, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:48 PM
To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
Cc: kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-
dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation
condition on vcpu schedule
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 14:42 -0500, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
wrote:
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu * [KVMPPC_NR_LPIDS],
last_vcpu_on_cpu);
Hmm, I didn't know you could express types like that. Is this
special
syntax that only works for typeof?
Yes, AFAIK.
No space after *
Checkpatch complains about the missing space ;)
Checkpatch is wrong, which isn't surprising given that this is
unusual
syntax. We don't normally put a space after * when used to represent
a
pointer.
This is not something new. See [PATCH 04/10] percpu: cleanup percpu
array
definitions:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/24/26
I didn't say it was new, just unusual, and checkpatch doesn't recognize
it. Checkpatch shouldn't be blindly and silently obeyed when it says
something strange.
I agree with you about the syntax and I know other cases where checkpatch
is a moron. For similar corner cases checkpatch maintainers did not wanted
(or found it difficult) to make an exception. I would also like to see Alex
opinion on this.
I usually like to apply common sense :).
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
