Re: [PATCH 0/6] Get rid of mandatory huge page defines

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 08:29:43PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 08:49:28PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 06:41:22PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:31:29PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:36:36AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 02:22:27PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > > > The current KVM code relies on a number of definitions to exist for each
> > > > > > architecture:
> > > > > >   KVM_HPAGE_GFN_SHIFT
> > > > > >   KVM_NR_HPAGE_SIZES
> > > > > >   KVM_PAGES_PER_HPAGE
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > However, these defines are only used in the gfn_to_index function, which
> > > > > > is only used in the x86 code.  This series moves the gfn_to_index
> > > > > > function from the generic KVM code into the x86 world and gets rid of
> > > > > > the definitions from archiectures that don't use them.  s390 actually
> > > > > > uses these values in other code, so we leave that part untouched.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Patches based on kvm/next and available here:
> > > > > > git://git.linaro.org/people/cdall/linux-kvm-arm.git kvm-pagesize-cleanup
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Christoffer Dall (6):
> > > > > >   KVM: Move gfn_to_index to x86 specific code
> > > > > >   KVM: ARM: Get rid of KVM_HPAGE defines
> > > > > >   KVM: arm64: Get rid of KVM_HPAGE defines
> > > > > >   KVM: mips: Get rid of KVM_HPAGE defines
> > > > > >   KVM: ia64: Get rid of KVM_HPAGE defines
> > > > > >   KVM: PPC: Get rid of KVM_HPAGE defines
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any comments on this one?  I'd very much like to merge huge page support
> > > > > for KVM/ARM during the next merge window and it depends on this
> > > > > series.
> > > > > 
> > > > Looks fine to me, but why have you skipped s390?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Because the defines are actually used in their code, see above:
> > > 
> > > "... s390 actually uses these values in other code, so we leave that
> > > part untouched."
> > > 
> > It does? Where? I actually removed then and the code still build.
> > 
> 
> Eh, I can't find them either.  I must have messed something up, sorry
> about that.  Missing patch following!
> 
Thanks, applied all to queue.

> > > Will you apply these from the mailing list or should I send you a pull
> > > request?
> > > 
> > I will apply them from the mailing list.
> > 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Christoffer

--
			Gleb.