From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23901C43441 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:21:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D549021104 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YqzgXf42" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D549021104 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728813AbeK0RRt (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:17:49 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54118 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727331AbeK0RRs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:17:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4CFF208E4; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:20:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1543299660; bh=Y8+fsSghj7a6U+nW9R6tZWaPwTjKthOd8ZxhM1P11dk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YqzgXf420FklRqiXjotB4wmVMsX0X2hSFe54iH1MWHj5sLg1H4jzBzGZzSgNd5pG9 BkoYvqcdnXSkKJuIadGwwuWIjlEx6yhLnXHu2avB/mcH3ONL4B/QTk0TyY8JXDTNXj nGLyan+ftLGLUqnVubmY2hMryxE6jPOhnnmAQPBw= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:20:56 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Michael Kelley Cc: KY Srinivasan , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "catalin.marinas@armm.com" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "olaf@aepfle.de" , "apw@canonical.com" , "jasowang@redhat.com" , Stephen Hemminger , vkuznets Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Add hooks for per-CPU IRQ Message-ID: <20181127062056.GA30285@kroah.com> References: <20181122030914.16274-1-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181122031059.16338-1-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181122031059.16338-3-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181126192101.GC32208@kroah.com> <20181126195727.GA9957@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.0 (2018-11-25) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:56:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > From: Greg KH Monday, November 26, 2018 11:57 AM > > > > > You created "null" hooks that do nothing, for no one in this patch > > > > series, why? > > > > > > > > > > hv_enable_vmbus_irq() and hv_disable_vmbus_irq() have non-null > > > implementations in the ARM64 code in patch 2 of this series. The > > > implementations are in the new file arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c. > > > Or am I misunderstanding your point? > > > > So you use a hook in an earlier patch and then add it in a later one? > > > > Shouldn't you do it the other way around? As it is, the earlier patch > > should not work properly, right? > > The earlier patch implements the hook on the ARM64 side but it is > unused -- it's not called. The later patch then calls it. Wouldn't the > other way around be backwards? Ah, it wasn't obvious that the previous patch added it at all, why not just make that addition part of this patch? > The general approach is for patches 1 and 2 of the series to provide > all the new code under arch/arm64 to enable Hyper-V. But the code > won't get called (or even built) with just these two patches because > CONFIG_HYPERV can't be selected. Patch 3 is separate because it > applies to architecture independent code and arch/x86 code -- I thought > there might be value in keeping the ARM64 and x86 patches distinct. > Patch 4 applies to architecture independent code, and enables the > ARM64 code in patches 1 and 2 to be compiled and run when > CONFIG_HYPERV is selected. > > If combining some of the patches in the series is a better approach, I'm > good with that. Ok, that makes more sense, if it is easier to get the ARM people to review this, that's fine. Doesn't seem like anyone did that yet :( sorry for the noise, greg k-h