On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:24 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:40 +0100,
> > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() and the associated macro
> > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() and
> > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS respectively.
> > >
> > > Making the name plural matches kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() and makes it more
> > > clear that this function can affect more than one remote TLB.
> > >
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 2 +-
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index 04cedf9f8811..9b0ad8f3bf32 100644
> > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > >
> > > -#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB
> > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
> > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
> >
> > How about making this prototype global? I don't see a point in having
> > it per-architecture, specially as you are adding arm64 to that mix in
> > the following patch.
> >
> We can make it global, but I'm not sure what was the intention of the
> original author. My guess is that he was following the same style that
> we have for some of the other kvm_arch_*() functions
> (kvm_arch_free_vm() for example)?
Heh, KVM has a *lot* of code that was written with questionable style. I agree
with Marc, I can't think of a single reason not to have the definition in common
code. Declaring the function doesn't preclude a "static inline" implementation,
and we could even keep the prototype under an #ifdef, e.g.
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index 9d3ac7720da9..5ac64f933547 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm)
{
return -ENOTSUPP;
}
+#else
+int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
#endif
#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
