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

[Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>]

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."

Will you apply these from the mailing list or should I send you a pull
request?

Thanks,
-Christoffer