Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 27.09.2013, at 12:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Missing patch description.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I fail to see how this really simplifies things, but at the end of the
> day it's Gleb's and Paolo's call.
will do. It avoid calling
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
smp_call_function_single()
on multiple architecture.
We also want to make the smp call function a callback of opaque. Hence
this should be made arch specific.
int kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *opaque)
{
int r,cpu;
struct kvmppc_ops *kvm_ops = (struct kvmppc_ops *)opaque;
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
smp_call_function_single(cpu,
kvm_ops->check_processor_compat,
&r, 1);
if (r < 0)
break;
}
return r;
}
against
- for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
- smp_call_function_single(cpu,
- kvm_arch_check_processor_compat,
- &r, 1);
- if (r < 0)
- goto out_free_1;
- }
+
+ r = kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(opaque);
+ if (r < 0)
+ goto out_free_1;
>
> Which brings me to the next issue: You forgot to CC kvm@vger on your
> patch set. Gleb and Paolo don't read kvm-ppc@vger. And they shouldn't
> have to. Every kvm patch that you want review on or that should get
> applied needs to be sent to kvm@vger. If you want to tag it as PPC
> specific patch, do so by CC'ing kvm-ppc@vger.
Will do in the next update
-aneesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
