[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47d18f06-13b2-4ec5-b601-eb9a2738f06b@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:41:40 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: s390: cpu model: Use previously unused constant
On 03.11.23 19:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.11.23 18:30, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> No point in defining a size for the mask if we're not going to use it.
>
> I neither understand the patch description nor what the bug is that is
> being fixed (and how that description relates to the patch
> subject+description).
>
> Please improve the patch description.
>
Should this be
"
KVM: s390: cpu model: use proper define for facility mask size
We're using S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64 instead of
S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64 to define the array size of the facility
mask. Let's properly use S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64. Note that both
values are the same and, therefore, this is a pure cleanup.
"
I'm not convinced there is a bug and that this deserves a "Fixes:".
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists