From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/6] KVM: s390: generalize kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_ext()
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:17:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180215151700.1e0c5ef2.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5618ed59-a3d9-6d5b-f9b7-855111391abd@redhat.com>
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:14:37 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 15.02.2018 15:08, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:46:47 +0100
> > David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Move the Multiple-epoch facility handling into it and rename it to
> >> kvm_s390_get_tod_clock().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
> >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > Looks correct, but I'm not sure what this buys us?
>
> That we have functions that can be called without having to care about
> multiple epoch facility
>
> Namely
>
> kvm_s390_set_tod_clock()
> kvm_s390_get_tod_clock()
> kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_fast()
>
OK, that makes sense. Maybe add something like that to the patch
description?
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-15 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-07 11:46 [PATCH RFC 0/6] KVM: s390: Multiple-epoch facility fixes David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 1/6] KVM: s390: take care of clock-comparator sign control David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 13:47 ` Collin L. Walling
2018-02-07 13:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 14:06 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-02-16 9:45 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 2/6] KVM: s390: provide only a single function for setting the tod David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 20:13 ` Collin L. Walling
2018-02-07 20:15 ` Collin L. Walling
2018-02-07 21:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 3/6] KVM: s390: consider epoch index on hotplugged CPUs David Hildenbrand
2018-02-15 13:09 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-02-16 9:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 4/6] KVM: s390: consider epoch index on TOD clock syncs David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 20:08 ` Collin L. Walling
2018-02-07 21:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 22:43 ` Collin L. Walling
2018-02-08 12:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 5/6] KVM: s390: no need to inititalize kvm->arch members to 0 David Hildenbrand
2018-02-15 13:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 6/6] KVM: s390: generalize kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_ext() David Hildenbrand
2018-02-15 14:08 ` Cornelia Huck
2018-02-15 14:14 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-02-15 14:17 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2018-02-15 14:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-02-07 11:50 ` [PATCH RFC 0/6] KVM: s390: Multiple-epoch facility fixes David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180215151700.1e0c5ef2.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).