From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] KVM: Prepare for moving vcpu_load/vcpu_put into arch specific code Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:55:58 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171125205718.7731-1-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <20171125205718.7731-2-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <838db374-6040-c805-82f3-187a2cdfc40d@redhat.com> <20171127195830.GB16941@cbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171127195830.GB16941@cbox> Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Christoffer Dall Cc: Christoffer Dall , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Jones , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Marc Zyngier , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, James Hogan , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Alexander Graf , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 27/11/2017 20:58, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Going back and looking, it's nicer to avoid the pid adjustment call, and > having vcpu_load be void is also convenient, but we're stuck with the > ifdef. I guess I lean towards your suggestion as well, given that my > problem with the ifdef is not a technical one, but an aesthetic one. Same here, so I think we're in agreement. Paolo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:55:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] KVM: Prepare for moving vcpu_load/vcpu_put into arch specific code In-Reply-To: <20171127195830.GB16941@cbox> References: <20171125205718.7731-1-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <20171125205718.7731-2-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <838db374-6040-c805-82f3-187a2cdfc40d@redhat.com> <20171127195830.GB16941@cbox> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 27/11/2017 20:58, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Going back and looking, it's nicer to avoid the pid adjustment call, and > having vcpu_load be void is also convenient, but we're stuck with the > ifdef. I guess I lean towards your suggestion as well, given that my > problem with the ifdef is not a technical one, but an aesthetic one. Same here, so I think we're in agreement. Paolo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:55:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] KVM: Prepare for moving vcpu_load/vcpu_put into arch specific code Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20171125205718.7731-1-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <20171125205718.7731-2-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <838db374-6040-c805-82f3-187a2cdfc40d@redhat.com> <20171127195830.GB16941@cbox> In-Reply-To: <20171127195830.GB16941@cbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoffer Dall Cc: Christoffer Dall , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Jones , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Marc Zyngier , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, James Hogan , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Alexander Graf , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 27/11/2017 20:58, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Going back and looking, it's nicer to avoid the pid adjustment call, and > having vcpu_load be void is also convenient, but we're stuck with the > ifdef. I guess I lean towards your suggestion as well, given that my > problem with the ifdef is not a technical one, but an aesthetic one. Same here, so I think we're in agreement. Paolo