[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6473259f-37de-bd0a-2733-c951f901b048@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:13:03 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] KVM: selftests: Guard struct kvm_vcpu_events with
__KVM_HAVE_VCPU_EVENTS
On 20.05.19 10:08, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/05/2019 09.12, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>> On 16.05.19 13:12, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> The struct kvm_vcpu_events code is only available on certain architectures
>>> (arm, arm64 and x86). To be able to compile kvm_util.c also for other
>>> architectures, we've got to fence the code with __KVM_HAVE_VCPU_EVENTS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>>
>> According to the MAINTAINERS patches, you want me to pick these patches. Correct?
>
> That would be nice, yes. But if you don't want to be responsible for
> s390x-related KVM selftest patches, please let me know, then I'll drop
> these hunks from the patches again.
I can take care of these (as part of the normal KVM maintainership).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists