Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/3] s390x: define UV compatible I/O allocation

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

 





On 1/21/21 2:43 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 21/01/2021 14.02, 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 ?

If it's a new file, it's up to the author. I personally prefer -later, but I think IBM's preference is normally -only instead. Please check with your colleagues. Most s390x-related files in the kvm-unit-tests currently use "GPL-2.0-only", so that should be ok anyway.

/* or // ?

I don't mind. // seems to be kernel style for .c files, but so far we've only used /* with SPDX in the kvm-unit-tests, so both should be fine, I think.

Just to : Why are you people not using the Linux style code completely instead of making new exceptions.

i.e. SPDX license and MAINTAINERS

Actually, I wonder why the Linux documentation still recommends the identifiers that are marked as deprecated on the SPDX website. The deprecated "GPL-2.0" can be rather confusing, since it IMHO can easily be mistaken as "GPL-2.0+", so the newer identifiers are better, indeed.

Not sure what you mean with MAINTAINERS, though.

Thanks for the explanations :)

For MAINTAINERS, the Linux kernel checkpatch warns that we should use
TABS instead of SPACES between item and names.

Pierre

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux