[PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
Alexander Graf
agraf at suse.de
Wed Jun 18 06:42:01 EST 2014
On 17.06.14 22:36, mihai.caraman at freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wood Scott-B07421
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc at vger.kernel.org; kvm at vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev at lists.ozlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation
>> condition on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 15:02 -0500, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wood Scott-B07421
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:48 PM
>>>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc at vger.kernel.org; kvm at vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>>>> dev at lists.ozlabs.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation
>>>> condition on vcpu schedule
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 14:42 -0500, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
>>>>>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu * [KVMPPC_NR_LPIDS],
>>>>>> last_vcpu_on_cpu);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, I didn't know you could express types like that. Is this
>>>> special
>>>>>> syntax that only works for typeof?
>>>>> Yes, AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No space after *
>>>>> Checkpatch complains about the missing space ;)
>>>> Checkpatch is wrong, which isn't surprising given that this is
>> unusual
>>>> syntax. We don't normally put a space after * when used to represent
>> a
>>>> pointer.
>>> This is not something new. See [PATCH 04/10] percpu: cleanup percpu
>> array
>>> definitions:
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/24/26
>> I didn't say it was new, just unusual, and checkpatch doesn't recognize
>> it. Checkpatch shouldn't be blindly and silently obeyed when it says
>> something strange.
> I agree with you about the syntax and I know other cases where checkpatch
> is a moron. For similar corner cases checkpatch maintainers did not wanted
> (or found it difficult) to make an exception. I would also like to see Alex
> opinion on this.
I usually like to apply common sense :).
Alex
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list