From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66CC2370AC0; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786543443; cv=none; b=R5tIjIBTRojCtQ1vsQR2buPbzdMp374jQSetx9X0tQfIlH0Boft2+T/eQOHKFQLRx/HYHWxMczgH+cMLkNnyUhPWDW/09qQWLI2gMN1z2kUq0s4lwgFaXHabZyjFtX/sPhImGRQVwWu862Nojg7EYJRgBbovwReiIMACKvHr1+w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786543443; c=relaxed/simple; bh=egl8FWuOjYGAJhOiUpzupKt+0VBnZ5php5F0Xex/8Ek=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=XBxK2tt2P40HCjxinHMN7odVASN/9rhNsa+dxJUAwNlpBjKZmaAmA6eX2p4QMCQAZbDKBrx0Kcnpv9/o0J/3jTjmNKDqxttQxou8jDqkkqpr2kDNG4PNyCeiGLJac7PJ1gAipAnlncWpmuGQzZWEYLk2Hhj406zKbj/w2PMyWR8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Ai9OmcOt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ai9OmcOt" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C9961F000E9; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:03:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786543439; bh=qGprAoRzUuj5OPnNZSsgBznq0Tu5FVJ63lomAapSIRo=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Ai9OmcOtZrTZ7VZUNkqoz4AqGs5mBu6bzX0NsOze7ynjxK2YCjwBacZk4wVqt/cb5 jGu+8IPiLxiCl0HQAfJZZaRC4PklmNgUWU/LJmFPMvvUBX/iVDIdcOOxGanJf753UK SnY003343DTs/eWh/84Bkf9LwrQd1l+/bkBovQBkVN1hoe2liqL0Nz4ICb9y6Mvssj QBaQcErIBWMloyhezrRL/jJ66S3ygocNn6DE5isqwluL4IpFTO6VmCTcjk+PAk1R+b Pe5RQpwGSuODrPuznyY7ebHcF2igX4FlZkjf0b8lT65XMbz+AAyWz6O6X2GitLz6/8 EF1KlqaL6t+qw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/20] KVM: s390: vsie: Move pin/unpin_scb methods Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Christoph Schlameuss" Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Carstens" , "Vasily Gorbik" , "Alexander Gordeev" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Christian Borntraeger" In-Reply-To: <20260812-vsie-sigpi-v4-5-f19e49666315@linux.ibm.com> References: <20260812-vsie-sigpi-v4-0-f19e49666315@linux.ibm.com> <20260812-vsie-sigpi-v4-5-f19e49666315@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:03:58 +0000 Message-Id: <20260812140359.4C9961F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] Moving `pin_scb()` and `unpin_scb()` above `pin_guest_page()` and `= unpin_guest_page()` breaks the build due to implicit function declarations. -- --- Patch [5]: [PATCH v4 05/20] KVM: s390: vsie: Move pin/unpin_scb methods= --- commit 9ab8e79b084bfe3f666a241f273dcfef094a8a8b Author: Christoph Schlameuss KVM: s390: vsie: Move pin/unpin_scb methods This commit moves the pin_scb() and unpin_scb() functions higher up in arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c in preparation for subsequent patches. > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c > index eea670530acbc..4b67bde0535fc 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c > @@ -660,6 +660,39 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct = vsie_page *vsie_page) > return rc; > } > =20 > +/* unpin the scb provided by guest 2, marking it as dirty */ > +static void unpin_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page, > + gpa_t gpa) > +{ > + hpa_t hpa =3D virt_to_phys(vsie_page->scb_o); > + > + if (hpa) > + unpin_guest_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa, hpa); [Severity: Low] Does moving this function up here cause a build failure? It looks like unpin_guest_page() is defined later in the file. Calling it here before it is declared or defined might result in an implicit function declaration error during compilation. > + vsie_page->scb_o =3D NULL; > +} > + > +/* > + * Pin the scb at gpa provided by guest 2 at vsie_page->scb_o. > + * > + * Returns: - 0 if the scb was pinned. > + * - > 0 if control has to be given to guest 2 > + */ > +static int pin_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page, > + gpa_t gpa) > +{ > + hpa_t hpa; > + int rc; > + > + rc =3D pin_guest_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa, &hpa); [Severity: Low] Similarly, does this call to pin_guest_page() also trigger an implicit function declaration error, since it appears to be defined further down in the file without a forward declaration? > + if (rc) { > + rc =3D kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_ADDRESSING); > + WARN_ON_ONCE(rc); > + return 1; > + } > + vsie_page->scb_o =3D phys_to_virt(hpa); > + return 0; > +} [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260812-vsie-sigpi= -v4-0-f19e49666315@linux.ibm.com?part=3D5