On 1/21/21 2:48 PM, Janosch Frank wrote:
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.
Oh OK,
thanks for the explanation,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
