On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 02:17:33PM -0700, David Daney wrote: > On 05/19/2013 07:17 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 06:54:26AM -0700, Sanjay Lal wrote: > >>From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>There are several parts to this: > >> > >>o All registers are 64-bits wide, 32-bit guests use the least > >> significant portion of the register storage fields. > >> > >>o FPU register formats are defined. > >> > >>o CP0 Registers are manipulated via the KVM_GET_MSRS/KVM_SET_MSRS > >> mechanism. > >> > >>The vcpu_ioctl_get_regs and vcpu_ioctl_set_regs function pointers > >>become unused so they were removed. > >> > >>Some IOCTL functions were moved to kvm_trap_emul because the > >>implementations are only for that flavor of KVM host. In the future, if > >>hardware based virtualization is added, they can be hidden behind > >>function pointers as appropriate. > >> > >David, can you please divide this one big patch to smaller patches > >with each one having only one of the changes listed above? > > Expanding the registers to 64 bits changes only four lines. Defining > the FPU registers is an additional seven lines. The rest really has > to be an atomic change. > It does not matter. If you have 10 logically unrelated one-liners (even if they are all part of one big goal) I expect to get 10 patches. > The point here is that we change the ABI. Any userspace tools have > to change too. So is it better to have a multi-part patch set where > the interface is unusable in the intermediate patches? Or is it > preferable to do an 'atomic' switch? Are "The vcpu_ioctl_get_regs and vcpu_ioctl_set_regs function pointers become unused so they were removed." and "Some IOCTL functions were moved to kvm_trap_emul..." also changes ABI? Unlikely, and then I expect to have two series: first one only have patches that change ABI and another rearrange the code. First one will go into 3.10 second in 3.11. > > It wasn't out of laziness that I chose to do it this way, it was > because I thought it was cleaner. > > So to directly answer your question: I prefer not to split this up, > and would want to have a better reason than an orthodox > interpretation of SubmittingPatches sec. 3. > It may seams orthodox interpretation if you are on a sender side, from a reviewer point of view it is the interpretation that saves a lot of time. I did looked into the patch before asking for split, not just asked for it based on the description. And, in addition, in this case, I want to have minimal set of changes that will go into 3.10. -- Gleb.
