From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD7AC43441 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696AD2086B for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:18:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 696AD2086B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730631AbeK0VQN (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:16:13 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60734 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726437AbeK0VQN (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:16:13 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4063563; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:18:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B9D703F575; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:18:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6D20C1AE0A0D; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:19:05 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:19:05 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Greg KH Cc: Michael Kelley , KY Srinivasan , "catalin.marinas@armm.com" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "olaf@aepfle.de" , "apw@canonical.com" , "jasowang@redhat.com" , Stephen Hemminger , vkuznets Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Add hooks for per-CPU IRQ Message-ID: <20181127101904.GA2928@arm.com> References: <20181122030914.16274-1-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181122031059.16338-1-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181122031059.16338-3-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181126192101.GC32208@kroah.com> <20181126195727.GA9957@kroah.com> <20181127062056.GA30285@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181127062056.GA30285@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:20:56AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:56:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > > From: Greg KH Monday, November 26, 2018 11:57 AM > > > > > > > You created "null" hooks that do nothing, for no one in this patch > > > > > series, why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > hv_enable_vmbus_irq() and hv_disable_vmbus_irq() have non-null > > > > implementations in the ARM64 code in patch 2 of this series. The > > > > implementations are in the new file arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c. > > > > Or am I misunderstanding your point? > > > > > > So you use a hook in an earlier patch and then add it in a later one? > > > > > > Shouldn't you do it the other way around? As it is, the earlier patch > > > should not work properly, right? > > > > The earlier patch implements the hook on the ARM64 side but it is > > unused -- it's not called. The later patch then calls it. Wouldn't the > > other way around be backwards? > > Ah, it wasn't obvious that the previous patch added it at all, why not > just make that addition part of this patch? > > > The general approach is for patches 1 and 2 of the series to provide > > all the new code under arch/arm64 to enable Hyper-V. But the code > > won't get called (or even built) with just these two patches because > > CONFIG_HYPERV can't be selected. Patch 3 is separate because it > > applies to architecture independent code and arch/x86 code -- I thought > > there might be value in keeping the ARM64 and x86 patches distinct. > > Patch 4 applies to architecture independent code, and enables the > > ARM64 code in patches 1 and 2 to be compiled and run when > > CONFIG_HYPERV is selected. > > > > If combining some of the patches in the series is a better approach, I'm > > good with that. > > Ok, that makes more sense, if it is easier to get the ARM people to > review this, that's fine. Doesn't seem like anyone did that yet :( It's on the list, but thanks for having a look as well! Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:19:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Add hooks for per-CPU IRQ In-Reply-To: <20181127062056.GA30285@kroah.com> References: <20181122030914.16274-1-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181122031059.16338-1-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181122031059.16338-3-kys@linuxonhyperv.com> <20181126192101.GC32208@kroah.com> <20181126195727.GA9957@kroah.com> <20181127062056.GA30285@kroah.com> Message-ID: <20181127101904.GA2928@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:20:56AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:56:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > > From: Greg KH Monday, November 26, 2018 11:57 AM > > > > > > > You created "null" hooks that do nothing, for no one in this patch > > > > > series, why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > hv_enable_vmbus_irq() and hv_disable_vmbus_irq() have non-null > > > > implementations in the ARM64 code in patch 2 of this series. The > > > > implementations are in the new file arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c. > > > > Or am I misunderstanding your point? > > > > > > So you use a hook in an earlier patch and then add it in a later one? > > > > > > Shouldn't you do it the other way around? As it is, the earlier patch > > > should not work properly, right? > > > > The earlier patch implements the hook on the ARM64 side but it is > > unused -- it's not called. The later patch then calls it. Wouldn't the > > other way around be backwards? > > Ah, it wasn't obvious that the previous patch added it at all, why not > just make that addition part of this patch? > > > The general approach is for patches 1 and 2 of the series to provide > > all the new code under arch/arm64 to enable Hyper-V. But the code > > won't get called (or even built) with just these two patches because > > CONFIG_HYPERV can't be selected. Patch 3 is separate because it > > applies to architecture independent code and arch/x86 code -- I thought > > there might be value in keeping the ARM64 and x86 patches distinct. > > Patch 4 applies to architecture independent code, and enables the > > ARM64 code in patches 1 and 2 to be compiled and run when > > CONFIG_HYPERV is selected. > > > > If combining some of the patches in the series is a better approach, I'm > > good with that. > > Ok, that makes more sense, if it is easier to get the ARM people to > review this, that's fine. Doesn't seem like anyone did that yet :( It's on the list, but thanks for having a look as well! Will