On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 19:41 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 03.11.23 19:36, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 03.11.23 18:30, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > > > No point in defining a size for the mask if we're not going to use it. > > > > I neither understand the patch description nor what the bug is that is > > being fixed (and how that description relates to the patch > > subject+description). > > > > Please improve the patch description. > > > > Should this be > > " > KVM: s390: cpu model: use proper define for facility mask size > > We're using S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64 instead of > S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64 to define the array size of the facility > mask. Let's properly use S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64. Note that both > values are the same and, therefore, this is a pure cleanup. > " > > I'm not convinced there is a bug and that this deserves a "Fixes:". Oh yeah, sorry, purely a cleanup. S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64 wasn't used anywhere. I also considered just getting rid of it and using one constant for both list and mask.
