On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:24 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:40 +0100, > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() and the associated macro > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() and > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS respectively. > > > > > > Making the name plural matches kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() and makes it more > > > clear that this function can affect more than one remote TLB. > > > > > > No functional change intended. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++-- > > > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 2 +- > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++-- > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++-- > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +- > > > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > > index 04cedf9f8811..9b0ad8f3bf32 100644 > > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {} > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > > > > > > -#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB > > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm); > > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > > > How about making this prototype global? I don't see a point in having > > it per-architecture, specially as you are adding arm64 to that mix in > > the following patch. > > > We can make it global, but I'm not sure what was the intention of the > original author. My guess is that he was following the same style that > we have for some of the other kvm_arch_*() functions > (kvm_arch_free_vm() for example)? Heh, KVM has a *lot* of code that was written with questionable style. I agree with Marc, I can't think of a single reason not to have the definition in common code. Declaring the function doesn't preclude a "static inline" implementation, and we could even keep the prototype under an #ifdef, e.g. diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h index 9d3ac7720da9..5ac64f933547 100644 --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm) { return -ENOTSUPP; } +#else +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm); #endif #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA