[PATCH v3 00/19] KVM GICv3 emulation

[Christoffer Dall]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> On 06/11/14 11:21, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:57:51AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:26:35PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please review and test.
>>>> I would be grateful for people to test for GICv2 regressions also
>>>> (so on a GICv2 host with current kvmtool/qemu), as there is quite
>>>> some refactoring on that front.
>>>>
>>> So looking at the final result, we have a very strange flow with the
>>> vgic_create() and kvm_vgic_create() functions.  I lost track in all the
>>> rewrite patches how this happened exactly, but what I think you want to
>>> end up with is:
>>>
>>> one exported function:
>>> int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type);
>>>
>>> which calls a static function:
>>> static int vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type);
>>>
>>> or simply inline the static one in the exported one, I can't seem to
>>> find other callers.
>>>
>> Strike that, my cscope setup was messed up.
>>
>> What I think you want is a static vgic_v3_create in vgic-v3-emul.c that
>> digs out the struct kvm pointer from the struct kvm_device and calls
>> kvm_vgic_create() and also just copy that single kfree(dev) line into
>> vgic_v3_destroy in vgic-v3-emul.c and the same for v2.
>
> So you want to remove vgic_destroy() and vgic_create() from vgic.c and
> vgic.h and use a static version of it in vgic-v[23]-emul.c instead?
> To avoid the two prototypes and make the declaration of the struct
> kvm_device_ops look nicer? Did I got this right?
>
> I did that now, it looks a bit neater, at the cost of small code
> duplication of admittedly trivial code. So as long as there isn't
> something added to those functions, that's probably fine.

Exactly!

>
> So I will include it in the next version.
>
Thanks,
-Christoffer