Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: rename kvm_hypercall() to epapr_hypercall()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02.10.2013, at 19:49, Scott Wood wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:46 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 02.10.2013, at 19:42, Scott Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 02.10.2013, at 19:04, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> On 02.10.2013, at 18:40, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>> Won't this break when CONFIG_EPAPR_PARAVIRT=n? We wouldn't have epapr_hcalls.S compiled into the code base then and the bl above would reference an unknown function.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> KVM_GUEST selects EPAPR_PARAVIRT.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But you can not select KVM_GUEST and still call these inline functions, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Like kvm_arch_para_features().
>>>>> 
>>>>> Where does that get called without KVM_GUEST?
>>>>> 
>>>>> How would that work currently, with the call to kvm_hypercall() in
>>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm.c (which calls epapr_hypercall, BTW)?
>>>> 
>>>> It wouldn't ever get called because kvm_hypercall() ends up always returning EV_UNIMPLEMENTED when #ifndef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST.
>>> 
>>> OK, so the objection is to removing that stub?  Where would we actually
>>> want to call this without knowing that KVM_GUEST or EPAPR_PARAVIRT are
>>> enabled?
>> 
>> In probing code. I usually prefer
>> 
>> if (kvm_feature_available(X)) {
>>   ...
>> }
>> 
>> over
>> 
>> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST
>> if (kvm_feature_available(X)) {
>>   ...
>> }
>> #endif
>> 
>> at least when I can avoid it. With the current code the compiler would be smart enough to just optimize out the complete branch.
> 
> Sure.  My point is, where would you be calling that where the entire
> file isn't predicated on (or selecting) CONFIG_KVM_GUEST or similar?
> 
> We don't do these stubs for every single function in the kernel -- only
> ones where the above is a reasonable use case.

Yeah, I'm fine on dropping it, but we need to make that a conscious decision and verify that no caller relies on it.


Alex

--
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




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux