From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36644 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726831AbfFNKDY (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:03:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:03:21 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] s390: vfio-ccw code rework Message-ID: <20190614120321.1c662472.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20190606202831.44135-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190606202831.44135-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Eric Farman Cc: Farhan Ali , Halil Pasic , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:28:22 +0200 Eric Farman wrote: > Now that we've gotten a lot of other series either merged or > pending for the next merge window, I'd like to revisit some > code simplification that I started many moons ago. > > In that first series, a couple of fixes got merged into 4.20, > a couple more got some "seems okay" acks/reviews, and the rest > were nearly forgotten about. I dusted them off and did quite a > bit of rework to make things a little more sequential and > providing a better narrative (I think) based on the lessons we > learned in my earlier changes. Because of this rework, the > acks/reviews on the first version didn't really translate to the > code that exists here (patch 1 being the closest exception), so > I didn't apply any of them here. The end result is mostly the > same as before, but now looks like this: > > Patch summary: > 1: Squash duplicate code > 2-4: Remove duplicate code in CCW processor > 5-7: Remove one layer of nested arrays > 8-9: Combine direct/indirect addressing CCW processors > > Using 5.2.0-rc3 as a base plus the vfio-ccw branch of recent fixes, > we shrink the code quite a bit (8.7% according to the bloat-o-meter), > and we remove one set of mallocs/frees on the I/O path by removing > one layer of the nested arrays. There are no functional/behavioral > changes with this series; all the tests that I would run previously > continue to pass/fail as they today. Very nice cleanup! All the patches look good to me; I'll wait if anyone else has any comments and will probably pick them next week if nobody objects.