Hi Liran & Thomas:
Thanks for your review.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 5:20 PM Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
Normally, I also prefer to put the function definition into the patch
which use it.
But the following patch "KVM: Replace old tlb flush function with new
one to flush a specified range"
and other patches which use new functions will change a lot of places.
It's not friendly for review and
so I split them into pieces.
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
