Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Implement handling of RH=1 for MSI delivery in KVM

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

 



2015-03-16 11:28-0600, James Sullivan:
> Changes Since v1:
>     * Reworked patches into two commits:
>         1) [Patch v2 1/2] Extended struct kvm_lapic_irq with bool
>             msi_redir_hint
>             * Initialize msi_redir_hint = true in kvm_set_msi_irq when RH=1
>             * Initialize msi_redir_hint = false otherwise
>             * Added value of msi_redir_hint to debug message dump of IRQ in
>                 apic_send_ipi
>         2) [Patch v2 2/2] Deliver to only lowest prio CPU if msi_redir_hint 
>            is true 
>             * Move kvm_is_dm_lowest_prio() -> lapic.h, rename to
>                 kvm_lowest_prio_delivery, set condition to
>                 (APIC_DM_LOWPRI || msi_redir_hint)
>             * Change check in kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast() for
>                 APIC_DM_LOWPRI or msi_redir_hint to a check for
>                 kvm_is_dm_lowest_prio() 

Functionality is good, but patch style is not up to par.
(Documentation/SubmittingPatches)

Subjects should begin with "kvm: " (or in CAPS), followed by "x86:",
`git log $file` is a good reference.
(Proper tags protect your ancestors from getting cursed if you decide to
 Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.)

Commit messages are really useful ... ideally they contain
 - purpose of the patch (probably won't fit in a subject)
 - design decisions
 - excerpts from documentation

If it is hard to come up with a commit message, it's likely not a good
patch -- right now, you could basically paste the cover letter if you
did the following:
 - do the renaming and moving in a first patch
 - do stuff from [1/2] in a second patch + check for irq->msi_redir_hint
   in kvm_lowest_prio_delivery()

> (The patch relies on the changes made in a prior patch that adds a check
> for the RH bit in kvm_set_msi_irq(); see <5502FEDB.3030606@xxxxxxxxx>)

I failed to spot that this patch has suboptimal Subject in my earlier
review, sorry.

I see two options now
 1) ask the maintainer to fix it when applying the patch
 2) resend; you can include the patch in this series
    (send a reply to the original one, to make it clear.)

I like option (2) better -- you'll drop the patch-dependency and you
might also change something else if you decide to.
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux