> On 14 Oct 2018, at 11:16, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Liran Alon wrote:
>>> On 13 Oct 2018, at 17:53, lantianyu1986@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>> +
>>> +static inline bool kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range;
>>> +}
>>
>> Seems that kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is not used in this patch…
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> It provides the implementation and later patches make use of it. It's a
> sensible way to split patches into small, self contained entities.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
I guess it’s a matter of taste, but I prefer to not add dead-code for patches
in order for each commit to compile nicely without warnings of declared and unused functions.
I would prefer to just add this utility function on the patch that actually use it.
-Liran
