Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:26:09 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 02/14] KVM: Declare kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() globally | From | Shaoqin Huang <> |
| |
On 8/10/23 00:38, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:00 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 8/9/23 09:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: >>> There's no reason for the architectures to declare >>> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to >>> avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving >>> the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS >>> as needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> >>> --- >>> arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - >>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>> index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 >>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>> @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} >>> static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} >>> >>> #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS >>> -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); >>> >>> #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ >>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h >>> index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h >>> @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) >>> { >>> return -ENOTSUPP; >>> } >>> +#else >>> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); >>> #endif >>> >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA >> >> Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? >> In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() >> from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. >> > Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any > existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm > happy to move.
This is amazing to me. This change can be compiled without any error even if the declaration inconsistent between the kvm_host.h and x86's header file.
I'm curious which option make it possible?
Thanks, Shaoqin
> > Thank you. > Raghavendra >> Thanks, >> Gavin >> >
-- Shaoqin
| |