From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41605)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>) id 1Selk8-0004NB-DP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:28:14 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>) id 1Selk2-00025p-1y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:28:07 -0400
Received: from e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.107]:38498)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>) id 1Selk1-00025N-Ot
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:28:01 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use
	Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>;
	Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:27:57 +0100
Received: from d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
	[9.149.37.247])
	by d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with
	ESMTP id q5DBRsZU2760886
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:27:54 +0100
Received: from d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with
	ESMTP id q5DBRsVt015029
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:27:54 -0600
Message-ID: <4FD87939.8060304@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:27:53 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1338984323-21914-1-git-send-email-jfrei@de.ibm.com>
	<1338984323-21914-3-git-send-email-jfrei@de.ibm.com>
	<4FD70CC0.7000901@suse.de> <4FD725EB.7050501@de.ibm.com>
	<4FD72EC2.2010105@suse.de> <4FD72FD4.6020008@de.ibm.com>
	<4FD73220.5000408@suse.de> <4FD86BB1.9060900@siemens.com>
	<4FD87156.10705@suse.de> <4FD8724A.6020704@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD8724A.6020704@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/8] s390: autodetect map private
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Jens Freimann <jfrei@de.ibm.com>, Heinz Graalfs <graalfs@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Jens Freimann <jfrei@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>

On 13/06/12 12:58, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Thinking about this a bit more, how about
>>
>> } else if (!kvm_arch_vmalloc(size, &new_block->host)) {
>> <normal code>
>> }
>>

I like that. Of course, we have to have a generic kvm_arch_vmalloc implementation
then.

>> Then the arch specific code could do the check and the implementation of 
>> vmalloc, but only has to return -1 if we don't need it and things still 
>> fall back to the generic code.
> 
> But you would have to walk a while to find out that only s390x on (old)
> KVM actually returns success here and does some allocation.


It that such a problem? What about adding a comment then, otherwise we just
use ifdef as a comment, which isnt nice either.

Christian