[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5B6D7FB402000078001DCF30@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 06:06:12 -0600
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Linux Virtualization" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
<rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Alok Kataria" <akataria@...are.com>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 04/10] x86/paravirt: use a single ops
structure
>>> On 10.08.18 at 13:52, <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/hyperv/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/mmu.c
> @@ -228,9 +228,9 @@ void hyperv_setup_mmu_ops(void)
>
> if (!(ms_hyperv.hints & HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_RECOMMENDED)) {
> pr_info("Using hypercall for remote TLB flush\n");
> - pv_mmu_ops.flush_tlb_others = hyperv_flush_tlb_others;
> + pv_ops.pv_mmu_ops.flush_tlb_others = hyperv_flush_tlb_others;
Taking just this as example, why not
pv_ops.mmu.flush_tlb_others = hyperv_flush_tlb_others;
? Both pv_ and _ops are redundant on the field names.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists