From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lantianyu1986@gmail.com (Tianyu Lan) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 20:57:22 +0800 Subject: [PATCH V4 2/15] KVM/MMU: Add tlb flush with range helper function In-Reply-To: <1BDC7949-CFED-46C2-9D05-42864B0AD0F0@oracle.com> References: <20181013145406.4911-1-Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com> <20181013145406.4911-3-Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com> <4D709C3A-A91C-4CA7-922A-E77618EF21B4@oracle.com> <1BDC7949-CFED-46C2-9D05-42864B0AD0F0@oracle.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Liran & Thomas: Thanks for your review. On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 5:20 PM Liran Alon wrote: > > > > > On 14 Oct 2018, at 11:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Liran Alon wrote: > >>> On 13 Oct 2018, at 17:53, lantianyu1986 at gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> + > >>> +static inline bool kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range(void) > >>> +{ > >>> + return kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range; > >>> +} > >> > >> Seems that kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is not used in this patch? > > > > What's wrong with that? > > > > It provides the implementation and later patches make use of it. It's a > > sensible way to split patches into small, self contained entities. > > > > Thanks, > > > > tglx > > > > I guess it?s a matter of taste, but I prefer to not add dead-code for patches > in order for each commit to compile nicely without warnings of declared and unused functions. > I would prefer to just add this utility function on the patch that actually use it. > > -Liran > Normally, I also prefer to put the function definition into the patch which use it. But the following patch "KVM: Replace old tlb flush function with new one to flush a specified range" and other patches which use new functions will change a lot of places. It's not friendly for review and so I split them into pieces. -- Best regards Tianyu Lan