From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753071AbcKRTUK (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:20:10 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37180 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751971AbcKRTUH (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:20:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: merge kvm_arch_set_irq and kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic To: David Hildenbrand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org References: <1479394547-15249-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <4d1b0863-8c51-079a-b74e-8950c51060ff@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <0e695811-5053-adfa-1ac9-3e9c55dbc596@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:20:03 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4d1b0863-8c51-079a-b74e-8950c51060ff@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:20:07 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18/11/2016 19:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Am 17.11.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >> kvm_arch_set_irq is unused since commit b97e6de9c96. Merge >> its functionality with kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic. >> >> Reported-by: Jiang Biao >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >> --- > > As you said, it is unused. Therefore the functionality is superfluous. > Why merge it? Because we can handle Hyper-V synthetic interrupts atomically, and that was the intended usage of kvm_arch_set_irq's code (see commit c9a5eccac1ab, "kvm/eventfd: add arch-specific set_irq", 2015-10-16). What happened was that the API changed between commit c9a5eccac1ab and the merge of the Hyper-V synthetic interrupt patches, and the latter was not adjusted. Paolo > We can still introduce this later if we ever need it. Or do you have a > concrete user in mind? > > The patch in general looks good to me. Just wondering if we can't simply > rip out that single function. >