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]

Message-ID: <CAOLK0pxC9S7YzoC-YmE7bw2VyPEZfxZSCOW+hW+t3Mi8V6Y-RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 Oct 2018 20:57:22 +0800
From:   Tianyu Lan <lantianyu1986@...il.com>
To:     liran.alon@...cle.com
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tianyu Lan <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,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        "linux-kernel@...r kernel org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        kvm <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

Hi Liran & Thomas:
              Thanks for your review.


On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 5:20 PM Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>

Normally, I also prefer to put the function definition into the patch
which use it.
But the following patch "KVM: Replace old tlb flush function with new
one to flush a specified range"
and other patches which use new functions will change a lot of places.
It's not friendly for review and
so I split them into pieces.
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan