linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 2/15] KVM/MMU: Add tlb flush with range helper function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 14 Oct 2018 12:20:00 +0300
From:   Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     lantianyu1986@...il.com, Lan Tianyu <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        christoffer.dall@....com, marc.zyngier@....com, linux@...linux.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, jhogan@...nel.org,
        ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com, paulus@...abs.org,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/15] KVM/MMU: Add tlb flush with range helper function



> On 14 Oct 2018, at 11:16, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Liran Alon wrote:
>>> On 13 Oct 2018, at 17:53, lantianyu1986@...il.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> +
>>> +static inline bool kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	return kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range;
>>> +}
>> 
>> Seems that kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is not used in this patch…
> 
> What's wrong with that? 
> 
> It provides the implementation and later patches make use of it. It's a
> sensible way to split patches into small, self contained entities.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 	

I guess it’s a matter of taste, but I prefer to not add dead-code for patches
in order for each commit to compile nicely without warnings of declared and unused functions.
I would prefer to just add this utility function on the patch that actually use it.

-Liran