From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751906Ab3KRWNi (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:13:38 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0029.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.29]:53666 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751544Ab3KRWNh (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:13:37 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 50,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:967:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2565:2682:2685:2828:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022 X-HE-Tag: ink59_764dcffe1d259 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1851 Message-ID: <1384812810.17783.2.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] xen: vnuma support for PV guests running as domU From: Joe Perches To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Elena Ufimtseva , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, mukesh.rathor@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:13:30 -0800 In-Reply-To: <528A831B.8020602@zytor.com> References: <1384806350-12651-1-git-send-email-ufimtseva@gmail.com> <1384806350-12651-2-git-send-email-ufimtseva@gmail.com> <528A831B.8020602@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 13:14 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 11/18/2013 12:25 PM, Elena Ufimtseva wrote: > > +/* Checks if hypercall is supported */ > > +bool xen_vnuma_supported() > > This isn't C++... > http://lwn.net/Articles/487493/ > > There are several more things in this patchset that get flagged by > checkpatch, but apparently this rather common (and rather serious) > problem is still not being detected, even through a patch was submitted > almost two years ago: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/16/510 I gave notes to the patch and no follow up was done. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/16/514