On 5/11/21 6:13 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2021 13:51:45 +0000 > Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Let's add a UV library to make checking the UV feature bit easier. >> In the future this library file can take care of handling UV >> initialization and UV guest creation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> lib/s390x/asm/uv.h | 4 ++-- >> lib/s390x/io.c | 2 ++ >> lib/s390x/uv.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> lib/s390x/uv.h | 10 ++++++++++ >> s390x/Makefile | 1 + >> 5 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 lib/s390x/uv.c >> create mode 100644 lib/s390x/uv.h > > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h b/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h >> index 11f70a9f..b22cbaa8 100644 >> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h >> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h >> @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ >> * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it >> * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. >> */ >> -#ifndef UV_H >> -#define UV_H >> +#ifndef ASM_S390X_UV_H >> +#define ASM_S390X_UV_H > > Completely unrelated, but this made me look at the various header > guards, and they seem to be a bit all over the place. > > E.g. in lib/s390x/asm/, I see no prefix, ASM_S390X, _ASMS390X, > __ASMS390X, ... > > Would consolidating this be worthwhile, or just busywork? > Good catch Having a consolidated naming scheme would be good so new devs don't get confused.
