On Thu, Sep 02, 2021, Peter Xu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 06:46:14PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > >> Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> > > >> > Drop the unused function as reported by test bot. > > >> > > >> Your subject line says "Drop unused kvm_dirty_gfn_harvested()" while in > > >> reallity you drop "kvm_dirty_gfn_invalid()". > > > > > > Heh, Peter already sent v2[*]. Though that's a good reminder that it's helpful > > > to reviewers to respond to your own patch if there's a fatal mistake and you're > > > going to immediately post a new version. For tiny patches it's not a big deal, > > > but for larger patches it can avoid wasting reviewers' time. > > > > > > > Indeed. It's also a good reminder for reviewers that inbox is best > > treated like a stack and not like a queue :-) > > It should really be a queue, to be fair. :) Ya, a queue plus a deferred work queue for things that can't be handled in interrupt context ;-)
