From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:55096 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387591AbhAUPs4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:48:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/3] s390x: define UV compatible I/O allocation References: <1611220392-22628-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1611220392-22628-3-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <6c232520-dbd1-80e4-e3a3-949964df7403@linux.ibm.com> <3bce47db-c58c-6a2e-be72-9953f16a2dd4@linux.ibm.com> <75d5f645-cbfb-0a39-54ff-c61c67ed6355@linux.ibm.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:48:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <75d5f645-cbfb-0a39-54ff-c61c67ed6355@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, drjones@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.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 >>>> --- >>>> 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 >>>> M: David Hildenbrand >>>> M: Janosch Frank >>>> R: Cornelia Huck >>>> +R: Pierre Morel >>> >>> 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