From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp09.in.ibm.com (e28smtp09.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e28smtp09.in.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C712D2C00C4 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:13:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp09.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:43:15 +0530 Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031D8125803F for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:43:28 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r8RDFXkX16973904 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:45:33 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r8RDD9fT003846 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:43:10 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/11] kvm: simplify processor compat check In-Reply-To: References: <1380276233-17095-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380276233-17095-10-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:43:09 +0530 Message-ID: <87r4ca9zmi.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: " list" , Gleb Natapov , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Paolo Bonzini , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Alexander Graf writes: > On 27.09.2013, at 12:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" > > Missing patch description. > >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > > I fail to see how this really simplifies things, but at the end of the > day it's Gleb's and Paolo's call. will do. It avoid calling for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { smp_call_function_single() on multiple architecture. We also want to make the smp call function a callback of opaque. Hence this should be made arch specific. int kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *opaque) { int r,cpu; struct kvmppc_ops *kvm_ops = (struct kvmppc_ops *)opaque; for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_ops->check_processor_compat, &r, 1); if (r < 0) break; } return r; } against - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { - smp_call_function_single(cpu, - kvm_arch_check_processor_compat, - &r, 1); - if (r < 0) - goto out_free_1; - } + + r = kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(opaque); + if (r < 0) + goto out_free_1; > > Which brings me to the next issue: You forgot to CC kvm@vger on your > patch set. Gleb and Paolo don't read kvm-ppc@vger. And they shouldn't > have to. Every kvm patch that you want review on or that should get > applied needs to be sent to kvm@vger. If you want to tag it as PPC > specific patch, do so by CC'ing kvm-ppc@vger. Will do in the next update -aneesh