[PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Usama Arif]

This includes table format and using reST labels for
cross-referencing to vcpu.rst.

Suggested-by:  Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>
---
 Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst   | 14 ++++++++------
 Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst
index 392521af7c90..e88b34e586be 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst
@@ -23,21 +23,23 @@ the PV_TIME_FEATURES hypercall should be probed using the SMCCC 1.1
 ARCH_FEATURES mechanism before calling it.
 
 PV_TIME_FEATURES
-    ============= ========    ==========
+
+    ============= ========    =================================================
     Function ID:  (uint32)    0xC5000020
     PV_call_id:   (uint32)    The function to query for support.
                               Currently only PV_TIME_ST is supported.
     Return value: (int64)     NOT_SUPPORTED (-1) or SUCCESS (0) if the relevant
                               PV-time feature is supported by the hypervisor.
-    ============= ========    ==========
+    ============= ========    =================================================
 
 PV_TIME_ST
-    ============= ========    ==========
+
+    ============= ========    ==============================================
     Function ID:  (uint32)    0xC5000021
     Return value: (int64)     IPA of the stolen time data structure for this
                               VCPU. On failure:
                               NOT_SUPPORTED (-1)
-    ============= ========    ==========
+    ============= ========    ==============================================
 
 The IPA returned by PV_TIME_ST should be mapped by the guest as normal memory
 with inner and outer write back caching attributes, in the inner shareable
@@ -76,5 +78,5 @@ It is advisable that one or more 64k pages are set aside for the purpose of
 these structures and not used for other purposes, this enables the guest to map
 the region using 64k pages and avoids conflicting attributes with other memory.
 
-For the user space interface see Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
-section "3. GROUP: KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL".
+For the user space interface see
+:ref:`Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst <kvm_arm_vcpu_pvtime_ctrl>`.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
index 716aa3edae14..31f14ec4a65b 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
@@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ configured values on other VCPUs.  Userspace should configure the interrupt
 numbers on at least one VCPU after creating all VCPUs and before running any
 VCPUs.
 
+.. _kvm_arm_vcpu_pvtime_ctrl:
+
 3. GROUP: KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL
 ==================================
 
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Steven Price]

On 03/11/2022 13:12, Usama Arif wrote:
> This includes table format and using reST labels for
> cross-referencing to vcpu.rst.
> 
> Suggested-by:  Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>

Reviewed-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>

> ---
>  Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst   | 14 ++++++++------
>  Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst
> index 392521af7c90..e88b34e586be 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvtime.rst
> @@ -23,21 +23,23 @@ the PV_TIME_FEATURES hypercall should be probed using the SMCCC 1.1
>  ARCH_FEATURES mechanism before calling it.
>  
>  PV_TIME_FEATURES
> -    ============= ========    ==========
> +
> +    ============= ========    =================================================
>      Function ID:  (uint32)    0xC5000020
>      PV_call_id:   (uint32)    The function to query for support.
>                                Currently only PV_TIME_ST is supported.
>      Return value: (int64)     NOT_SUPPORTED (-1) or SUCCESS (0) if the relevant
>                                PV-time feature is supported by the hypervisor.
> -    ============= ========    ==========
> +    ============= ========    =================================================
>  
>  PV_TIME_ST
> -    ============= ========    ==========
> +
> +    ============= ========    ==============================================
>      Function ID:  (uint32)    0xC5000021
>      Return value: (int64)     IPA of the stolen time data structure for this
>                                VCPU. On failure:
>                                NOT_SUPPORTED (-1)
> -    ============= ========    ==========
> +    ============= ========    ==============================================
>  
>  The IPA returned by PV_TIME_ST should be mapped by the guest as normal memory
>  with inner and outer write back caching attributes, in the inner shareable
> @@ -76,5 +78,5 @@ It is advisable that one or more 64k pages are set aside for the purpose of
>  these structures and not used for other purposes, this enables the guest to map
>  the region using 64k pages and avoids conflicting attributes with other memory.
>  
> -For the user space interface see Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
> -section "3. GROUP: KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL".
> +For the user space interface see
> +:ref:`Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst <kvm_arm_vcpu_pvtime_ctrl>`.
> \ No newline at end of file
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
> index 716aa3edae14..31f14ec4a65b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/devices/vcpu.rst
> @@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ configured values on other VCPUs.  Userspace should configure the interrupt
>  numbers on at least one VCPU after creating all VCPUs and before running any
>  VCPUs.
>  
> +.. _kvm_arm_vcpu_pvtime_ctrl:
> +
>  3. GROUP: KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL
>  ==================================
>  

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Bagas Sanjaya]

On 11/3/22 20:12, Usama Arif wrote:
> This includes table format and using reST labels for
> cross-referencing to vcpu.rst.
> 
> Suggested-by:  Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>

This is not what people normally do when given suggestion diff like
what I sent before [1]. Instead, they just apply and squash the
suggestion (while also applying requested changes from reviewers).

Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.

Thanks.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/Y2M6eU6xW7jjVQNx@debian.me/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20221102161340.2982090-1-usama.arif@bytedance.com/

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Marc Zyngier]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 13:55:29 +0000,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/3/22 20:12, Usama Arif wrote:
> > This includes table format and using reST labels for
> > cross-referencing to vcpu.rst.
> > 
> > Suggested-by:  Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>
> 
> This is not what people normally do when given suggestion diff like
> what I sent before [1]. Instead, they just apply and squash the
> suggestion (while also applying requested changes from reviewers).

No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.

> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.

Or not.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Marc Zyngier]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:12:10 +0000, Usama Arif wrote:
> This includes table format and using reST labels for
> cross-referencing to vcpu.rst.

Applied to kvm-arm64/misc-6.2, thanks!

[1/1] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation
      commit: e7442ac1da07910f4731cb812c05484e4be2d4de

Cheers,

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Bagas Sanjaya]

On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
> having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
> standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
> 
>> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
> 
> Or not.
> 

You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
right?

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Marc Zyngier]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:48:21 +0000,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
> > having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
> > standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
> > 
> >> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
> > 
> > Or not.
> > 
> 
> You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
> right?

This change is 100% independent from the series you quoted. Why should
there be a dependency between the two?

As for respinning the series at this stage for a documentation
formatting issue, this is pretty pointless, and only clutters people's
Inbox with redundant versions...

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Re: [PATCH] kvm/arm: Fix pvtime documentation

[Bagas Sanjaya]

On 11/4/22 18:06, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:48:21 +0000,
> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/3/22 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> No, this is the correct course of action. There isn't any point in
>>> having an *unrelated* change in a separate series. This is a
>>> standalone change, posted as a standalone patch.
>>>
>>>> Please reroll your series [2] with suggestion applied.
>>>
>>> Or not.
>>>
>>
>> You mean the series before this patch have already been applied,
>> right?
> 
> This change is 100% independent from the series you quoted. Why should
> there be a dependency between the two?
> 
> As for respinning the series at this stage for a documentation
> formatting issue, this is pretty pointless, and only clutters people's
> Inbox with redundant versions...
> 
> 	M.
> 

OK, thanks!

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara