On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:45:28AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:34AM -0800, 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.
>
> vmmouse should include some type of "vmware bus" .h file, if it's not
> the vmw_* files, what are they for? My point being, I didn't see the
> need to add another .h file when we should probably already have one for
> this bus, right?
I had a brief chat with Thomas on this, and he added to Dmitry's reply
earlier.
The two existing *.h files are for the VMCI driver, and the new macros
are used by the platform code and also other drivers like vmw_balloon and
vmmouse.
It makes more sense to create a new vmware.h file in arch/x86/include/asm
Sinclair
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
