From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:35:27 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Rename vgic_attr_regs_access to
 vgic_attr_regs_access_v2
In-Reply-To: <20160816160924.vaq7s3n3vjvx4uhg@kamzik.localdomain>
References: <20160816151034.16930-1-christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
 <20160816151034.16930-3-christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
 <20160816160924.vaq7s3n3vjvx4uhg@kamzik.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20160816173527.GG14088@cbox>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:09:24PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:10:34PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Just a rename so we can implement a v3-specific function later.  No
> > functional change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> > index 22d7ab3..2e18f03 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> > @@ -296,17 +296,20 @@ static bool lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> >  	return true;
> >  }
> >  
> > -/** vgic_attr_regs_access: allows user space to read/write VGIC registers
> > - *
> > - * @dev: kvm device handle
> > - * @attr: kvm device attribute
> > - * @reg: address the value is read or written
> > - * @is_write: write flag
> > +/* V2 ops */
> > +
> > +
> 
> Do we want 2 blank lines here? Do we need the 'V2 ops' comment at all?
> 
> > +/**
> > + * vgic_attr_regs_access_v2 - allows user space to access VGIC v2 state
> >   *
> > + * @dev:      kvm device handle
> > + * @attr:     kvm device attribute
> > + * @reg:      address the value is read or written
> > + * @is_write: true if userspace is writing a register
> >   */
> > -static int vgic_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > -				 struct kvm_device_attr *attr,
> > -				 u32 *reg, bool is_write)
> > +static int vgic_attr_regs_access_v2(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > +				    struct kvm_device_attr *attr,
> > +				    u32 *reg, bool is_write)
> >  {
> >  	struct vgic_reg_attr reg_attr;
> >  	gpa_t addr;
> > @@ -349,8 +352,6 @@ out:
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* V2 ops */
> > -
> >  static int vgic_v2_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> >  			    struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> >  {
> > @@ -369,7 +370,7 @@ static int vgic_v2_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> >  		if (get_user(reg, uaddr))
> >  			return -EFAULT;
> >  
> > -		return vgic_attr_regs_access(dev, attr, &reg, true);
> > +		return vgic_attr_regs_access_v2(dev, attr, &reg, true);
> >  	}
> >  	}
> >  
> > @@ -391,7 +392,7 @@ static int vgic_v2_get_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> >  		u32 __user *uaddr = (u32 __user *)(long)attr->addr;
> >  		u32 reg = 0;
> >  
> > -		ret = vgic_attr_regs_access(dev, attr, &reg, false);
> > +		ret = vgic_attr_regs_access_v2(dev, attr, &reg, false);
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			return ret;
> >  		return put_user(reg, uaddr);
> > -- 
> > 2.9.0
> >
> 
> No better way to attract reviewers than to advertise no functional
> change :-)
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
Thanks for the quick review!

v2 has been sent, hopefully Vijay can pick these up from here and
include in his series.

Thanks,
-Christoffer