[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874jnm8fst.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 10:38:26 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, shan.kang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/33] x86/traps: add a system interrupt table for
system interrupt dispatch
On Mon, Apr 10 2023 at 01:14, Xin Li wrote:
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -DECLARE_IDTENTRY(RESCHEDULE_VECTOR, sysvec_reschedule_ipi);
> +DECLARE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(RESCHEDULE_VECTOR, sysvec_reschedule_ipi);
Please do not hide unrelated semantical changes in a big pile of
supposed to be mechanical changes. Split it out and provide a proper
explanation why this is correct and required.
> +/*
> + * How system interrupt handlers are called.
> + */
> +#define DECLARE_SYSTEM_INTERRUPT_HANDLER(f) \
> + void f (struct pt_regs *regs)
> +typedef DECLARE_SYSTEM_INTERRUPT_HANDLER((*system_interrupt_handler));
How is this related to the other changes and why is it required. Please
make this reviewable.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists