On 12/02/2015 06:26 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>> -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
>>>>>>>>> -({ \
>>>>>>>>> - unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2; \
>>>>>>>>> - __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" : \
>>>>>>>>> - "=a"(out1), \
>>>>>>>>> - "=b"(out2), \
>>>>>>>>> - "=c"(out3), \
>>>>>>>>> - "=d"(out4), \
>>>>>>>>> - "=S"(__dummy1), \
>>>>>>>>> - "=D"(__dummy2) : \
>>>>>>>>> - "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC), \
>>>>>>>>> - "b"(in1), \
>>>>>>>>> - "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd), \
>>>>>>>>> - "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) : \
>>>>>>>>> - "memory"); \
>>>>>>>>> +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
>>>>>>>>> +({ \
>>>>>>>>> + unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0; \
>>>>>>>> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
>>>>>>> Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
>>>>>>> input and outout.
>>>>>> The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
>>>>>> are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
>>>>>> using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
>>>>>> benefit of doing this?
>>>>> There are two reasons. One is to make the code more readable and
>>>>> maintainable. Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
>>>>> code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
>>>>> and document that.
>>>> But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
>>>> so it makes no sense in this file.
>>> Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series. I wasn't
>>> sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
>> Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for. A number of
>> those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
>> merged...
>>
>>> This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
>>> vmw_balloon.c
>> And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
>> variables to 0 in all of them...) Now maybe that's just how the asm
>> functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
>>
>>>>> The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
>>>>> development easier.
>>>> We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
>>>> as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
>>>> happen. You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
>>>> is keeping that from happening.
>>> So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
>>> assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
>>> to a central place. The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
>>> to include for common guest-host communication needs.
>> Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
>> create yet-another-.h-file for your bus? You already have 2, this would
>> make it 3, which seems like a lot...
> Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
> are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
> hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.
Also the platform setup code uses the hypervisor port, so it's a natural
place for the macro defines.
/Thomas
>
> Thanks.
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
