[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53F5E5B1.6020106@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:27:29 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
CC: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vinod Chegu <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Hui-Zhi <hui-zhi.zhao@...com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: add kvm_arch_sched_in
Il 21/08/2014 13:38, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
> 2014-08-21 10:29+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
>> Il 20/08/2014 22:53, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
>>> Introduce preempt notifiers for architecture specific code.
>>> Advantage over creating a new notifier in every arch is slightly simpler
>>> code and guaranteed call order with respect to kvm_sched_in.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++++
>>> arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 4 ++++
>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 4 ++++
>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 ++++
>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++++
>>
>> What about adding them as static inlines in
>> arch/*/include/asm/kvm_host.h (except for arch/x86 of course)?
>
> All empty arch functions are in '.c' files, so it seems better to follow
> the same path.
> (And have one refactoring patch if GCC does not optimize this.)
GCC certainly does not optimize this (unless you use LTO).
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists