From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Przywara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Clean up some obsolete code Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:15:06 +0100 Message-ID: <5616503A.7060504@arm.com> References: <20151008101408.GA20936@cbox> <56164BC4.80104@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Pavel Fedin Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:34672 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753588AbbJHLOS (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 07:14:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <56164BC4.80104@arm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On 08/10/15 11:56, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 08/10/15 11:14, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> Hi Pavel, >> >> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 05:44:27PM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote: >>> Current KVM code has lots of old redundancies, which can be cleaned= up. >>> This patchset is actually a better alternative to >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg430726.html, which allow= s to >>> keep piggy-backed LRs. The idea is based on the fact that our code = also >>> maintains LR state in elrsr, and this information is enough to trac= k LR >>> usage. >>> >>> This patchset is made against linux-next of 02.10.2015. Thanks to A= ndre >>> for pointing out some 4.3 specifics. >>> >> I'm not opposed to these changes, they clean up the data structures >> which is definitely a good thing. >> >> I am a bit worries about how/if this is going to conflict with the I= TS >> series and other patches in flight touchignt he vgic. >> >> Marc/Andre, any thoughts on this? >=20 > I don't mind the simplification (Andre was already removing the > piggybacking stuff as part of his ITS series). I'm a bit more cautiou= s > about the sync_elrsr stuff, but that's mostly because I've only read = the > patch in a superficial way. >=20 > But yes, this is probably going to clash, unless we make this part of= an > existing series (/me looks at Andr=E9... ;-) Yes, I am looking at merging this. From the discussion with Pavel I remember some things that I disagreed with, so I may propose a follow-u= p patch. I will give this a try tomorrow. Cheers, Andre.