[PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h

[PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h

[Nicholas Krause]

This patch removes a fix me by including linux/types.h in kvm_para.h
as stated by the  fix me in main.c and also removes the comment from
main.c too.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 2 +-
 include/linux/kvm_para.h        | 3 +--
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
index f961de9..7ba314b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
 
 #define DEBUG
 
-#include <linux/types.h> /* FIXME: kvm_para.h needs this */
+#include <linux/types.h>
 
 #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
 #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
index 00a97bb..21d1be2 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_para.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
@@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
 #define __LINUX_KVM_PARA_H
 
 #include <uapi/linux/kvm_para.h>
-
-
+#include <linux/types.h>
 static inline int kvm_para_has_feature(unsigned int feature)
 {
 	if (kvm_arch_para_features() & (1UL << feature))
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Nicholas Krause wrote:

> This patch removes a fix me by including linux/types.h in kvm_para.h
> as stated by the  fix me in main.c and also removes the comment from
> main.c too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 2 +-
>  include/linux/kvm_para.h        | 3 +--
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> index f961de9..7ba314b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
>  
>  #define DEBUG
>  
> -#include <linux/types.h> /* FIXME: kvm_para.h needs this */
> +#include <linux/types.h>
>  
>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>  #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
> index 00a97bb..21d1be2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_para.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
> @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
>  #define __LINUX_KVM_PARA_H
>  
>  #include <uapi/linux/kvm_para.h>
> -
> -
> +#include <linux/types.h>
>  static inline int kvm_para_has_feature(unsigned int feature)
>  {
>  	if (kvm_arch_para_features() & (1UL << feature))

There's no build error reported that would indicate that this is needed, 
so this patch isn't justifiable.

Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h

[Nick Krause]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:06 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
>> This patch removes a fix me by including linux/types.h in kvm_para.h
>> as stated by the  fix me in main.c and also removes the comment from
>> main.c too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 2 +-
>>  include/linux/kvm_para.h        | 3 +--
>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> index f961de9..7ba314b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
>>
>>  #define DEBUG
>>
>> -#include <linux/types.h> /* FIXME: kvm_para.h needs this */
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>
>>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>>  #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> index 00a97bb..21d1be2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
>>  #define __LINUX_KVM_PARA_H
>>
>>  #include <uapi/linux/kvm_para.h>
>> -
>> -
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>  static inline int kvm_para_has_feature(unsigned int feature)
>>  {
>>       if (kvm_arch_para_features() & (1UL << feature))
>
> There's no build error reported that would indicate that this is needed,
> so this patch isn't justifiable.


David,

Good to hear a nicer reply after my stupid patch with page shifts.
Would you like me to send in a patch that removes this fix me
then?
Nick :)

Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Nick Krause wrote:

> >> This patch removes a fix me by including linux/types.h in kvm_para.h
> >> as stated by the  fix me in main.c and also removes the comment from
> >> main.c too.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 2 +-
> >>  include/linux/kvm_para.h        | 3 +--
> >>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> >> index f961de9..7ba314b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
> >>
> >>  #define DEBUG
> >>
> >> -#include <linux/types.h> /* FIXME: kvm_para.h needs this */
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>
> >>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
> >>  #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
> >> index 00a97bb..21d1be2 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/kvm_para.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
> >> @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
> >>  #define __LINUX_KVM_PARA_H
> >>
> >>  #include <uapi/linux/kvm_para.h>
> >> -
> >> -
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>  static inline int kvm_para_has_feature(unsigned int feature)
> >>  {
> >>       if (kvm_arch_para_features() & (1UL << feature))
> >
> > There's no build error reported that would indicate that this is needed,
> > so this patch isn't justifiable.
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> Good to hear a nicer reply after my stupid patch with page shifts.
> Would you like me to send in a patch that removes this fix me
> then?

The comment is not the only thing that can be removed in the above patch.  
If you test the change and can prove why it's not needed in the changelog, 
then such a patch would be worthwhile.

Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h

[Nick Krause]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
>
>> >> This patch removes a fix me by including linux/types.h in kvm_para.h
>> >> as stated by the  fix me in main.c and also removes the comment from
>> >> main.c too.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 2 +-
>> >>  include/linux/kvm_para.h        | 3 +--
>> >>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> >> index f961de9..7ba314b 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
>> >>
>> >>  #define DEBUG
>> >>
>> >> -#include <linux/types.h> /* FIXME: kvm_para.h needs this */
>> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> >>
>> >>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>> >>  #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> >> index 00a97bb..21d1be2 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> >> @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
>> >>  #define __LINUX_KVM_PARA_H
>> >>
>> >>  #include <uapi/linux/kvm_para.h>
>> >> -
>> >> -
>> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> >>  static inline int kvm_para_has_feature(unsigned int feature)
>> >>  {
>> >>       if (kvm_arch_para_features() & (1UL << feature))
>> >
>> > There's no build error reported that would indicate that this is needed,
>> > so this patch isn't justifiable.
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Good to hear a nicer reply after my stupid patch with page shifts.
>> Would you like me to send in a patch that removes this fix me
>> then?
>
> The comment is not the only thing that can be removed in the above patch.
> If you test the change and can prove why it's not needed in the changelog,
> then such a patch would be worthwhile.

I will rewrite this patch removing the comment and explain why.
Sounds good or should I remove this file too?
Nick