Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/3] s390x: define UV compatible I/O allocation

[Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>]

On 1/21/21 2:48 PM, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 1/21/21 2:02 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/21/21 10:46 AM, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> On 1/21/21 10:13 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>> To centralize the memory allocation for I/O we define
>>>> the alloc_io_page/free_io_page functions which share the I/O
>>>> memory with the host in case the guest runs with
>>>> protected virtualization.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    MAINTAINERS           |  1 +
>>>>    lib/s390x/malloc_io.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    lib/s390x/malloc_io.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    s390x/Makefile        |  1 +
>>>>    4 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644 lib/s390x/malloc_io.c
>>>>    create mode 100644 lib/s390x/malloc_io.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>>> index 54124f6..89cb01e 100644
>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ M: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>>>    M: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>>    M: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>    R: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>>> +R: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> If you're ok with the amount of mails you'll get then go ahead.
>>> But I think maintainer file changes should always be in a separate patch.
>>>
>>>>    L: kvm@vger.kernel.org
>>>>    L: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
>>>>    F: s390x/*
>>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/malloc_io.c b/lib/s390x/malloc_io.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..bfe8c6a
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/malloc_io.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>
>>> I think we wanted to use:
>>
>> @Janosch , @Thomas
>>
>>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>>
>> or
>>
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>
>> later or only ?
>>
>> /* or // ?
>>
>>
>> If both are OK, I will take the Janosch proposition which is in use in
>> vm.[ch] and ignore the Linux checkpatch warning.
>>
>> Just to : Why are you people not using the Linux style code completely
>> instead of making new exceptions.
>>
>> i.e. SPDX license and MAINTAINERS
>>
> 
> s390 also has /* */ style SPDX and GPL2.0+ statements in the kernel...
> 
> Since KUT has way less developers the style rules aren't as strict and
> currently I see that as an advantage. Following checkpatch down the
> cliff is a bad idea in the kernel and for unit tests. It's most often
> correct, but not always.
> 

Oh OK,
thanks for the explanation,

Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen