From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965235AbbHKOw5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:52:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52299 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965201AbbHKOwz (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:52:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [KVM x86 vPMU Patch 0/2] Two vPMU Trivial Patches To: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org References: <1438977210-24787-1-git-send-email-wei@redhat.com> <55C9F6C8.5010807@redhat.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gleb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org, trivial@kernel.org, drjones@redhat.com From: Wei Huang Message-ID: <55CA0C45.7070800@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:52:53 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55C9F6C8.5010807@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/11/15 08:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 07/08/2015 21:53, Wei Huang wrote: >> These two trivial patches are related to x86 vPMU code. They were >> actually suggested by Andrew Jones while he was reviewing the last >> big vPMU patch set. >> >> These patches have been compiled and tested on AMD system using >> a 64-bit guest VM with various perf commands (e.g. bench, test, top, >> stat). No obvious problems were found. >> >> Thanks, >> -Wei >> >> Wei Huang (2): >> KVM: x86/vPMU: Move the definition of kvm_pmu_ops to arch-specific >> files >> KVM: x86/vPMU: Fix unnecessary signed extesion for AMD PERFCTRn >> >> arch/x86/kvm/pmu.h | 2 -- >> arch/x86/kvm/pmu_amd.c | 2 -- >> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 1 + >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > > Applied patch 2. For patch 1 I'm not sure, because I do not really like > 1) externs in .c files; 2) globals with no declarations in a .h file. > So I'm leaving it out while I think more about it. Thanks. The first one is minor anyway. I won't complain about it. :-) -Wei > > Paolo >