On 1/21/21 2:02 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > On 1/21/21 10:46 AM, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 1/21/21 10:13 AM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>> To centralize the memory allocation for I/O we define >>> the alloc_io_page/free_io_page functions which share the I/O >>> memory with the host in case the guest runs with >>> protected virtualization. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>> lib/s390x/malloc_io.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> lib/s390x/malloc_io.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> s390x/Makefile | 1 + >>> 4 files changed, 117 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 lib/s390x/malloc_io.c >>> create mode 100644 lib/s390x/malloc_io.h >>> >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>> index 54124f6..89cb01e 100644 >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ M: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> M: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> M: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> R: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> +R: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> If you're ok with the amount of mails you'll get then go ahead. >> But I think maintainer file changes should always be in a separate patch. >> >>> L: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> L: linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> F: s390x/* >>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/malloc_io.c b/lib/s390x/malloc_io.c >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..bfe8c6a >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/lib/s390x/malloc_io.c >>> @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> >> I think we wanted to use: > > @Janosch , @Thomas > >> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ > > or > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > later or only ? > > /* or // ? > > > If both are OK, I will take the Janosch proposition which is in use in > vm.[ch] and ignore the Linux checkpatch warning. > > Just to : Why are you people not using the Linux style code completely > instead of making new exceptions. > > i.e. SPDX license and MAINTAINERS > s390 also has /* */ style SPDX and GPL2.0+ statements in the kernel... Since KUT has way less developers the style rules aren't as strict and currently I see that as an advantage. Following checkpatch down the cliff is a bad idea in the kernel and for unit tests. It's most often correct, but not always.
