On 14/10/2018 10:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +static inline bool kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range;
>>> +}
>> Seems that kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is not used in this patch…
> What's wrong with that?
>
> It provides the implementation and later patches make use of it. It's a
> sensible way to split patches into small, self contained entities.
That's true, on the other hand I have indeed a concerns with this patch:
this series is not bisectable at all, because all the new code is dead
until the very last patch. Uses of the new feature should come _after_
the implementation.
I don't have any big problem with what Liran pointed out (and I can live
with the unused static functions that would warn with -Wunused, too),
but the above should be fixed in v5, basically by moving patches 12-15
at the beginning of the series.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
