On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 07:47:41PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Monday, November 26, 2018 11:21 AM
>
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > > index 0d6271cce198..8d97bd3a13a6 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ void hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > > void hv_setup_vmbus_irq(void (*handler)(void));
> > > void hv_remove_vmbus_irq(void);
> > >
> > > +/* On x86/x64, there isn't a real IRQ to be enabled/disable */
> > > +static inline void hv_enable_vmbus_irq(void) {}
> > > +static inline void hv_disable_vmbus_irq(void) {}
> > > +
> > > void hv_setup_kexec_handler(void (*handler)(void));
> > > void hv_remove_kexec_handler(void);
> > > void hv_setup_crash_handler(void (*handler)(struct pt_regs *regs));
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hv/hv.c b/drivers/hv/hv.c
> > > index 166c2501de17..d0bb09a4bd73 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hv/hv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hv/hv.c
> > > @@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ int hv_synic_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > hv_set_siefp(siefp.as_uint64);
> > >
> > > /* Setup the shared SINT. */
> > > + hv_enable_vmbus_irq();
> > > hv_get_synint_state(VMBUS_MESSAGE_SINT, shared_sint.as_uint64);
> > >
> > > shared_sint.vector = HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR;
> > > @@ -434,6 +435,7 @@ int hv_synic_cleanup(unsigned int cpu)
> > > /* Disable the global synic bit */
> > > sctrl.enable = 0;
> > > hv_set_synic_state(sctrl.as_uint64);
> > > + hv_disable_vmbus_irq();
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.19.1
> >
> > You created "null" hooks that do nothing, for no one in this patch
> > series, why?
> >
>
> hv_enable_vmbus_irq() and hv_disable_vmbus_irq() have non-null
> implementations in the ARM64 code in patch 2 of this series. The
> implementations are in the new file arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c.
> Or am I misunderstanding your point?
So you use a hook in an earlier patch and then add it in a later one?
Shouldn't you do it the other way around? As it is, the earlier patch
should not work properly, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
