linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/16] KVM: selftests: move vm_phy_pages

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: <811ec8ba-433e-b167-6a60-cf3b5ceabb63@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:20:18 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@...gle.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/16] KVM: selftests: move vm_phy_pages_alloc() earlier in
 file

On 21/10/21 05:45, Michael Roth wrote:
>> Why move the function implementation? Maybe just adding a declaration
>> at the top of kvm_util.c should suffice.
> At least from working on other projects I'd gotten the impression that
> forward function declarations should be avoided if they can be solved by
> moving the function above the caller. Certainly don't mind taking your
> suggestion and dropping this patch if that's not the case here though.

I don't mind moving the code, so the patch is fine.

Paolo