| Message ID | 20231103173008.630217-4-nsg@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: s390: Fix minor bugs in STFLE shadowing | expand |
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.
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:".
On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 19:41 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > 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:". Oh yeah, sorry, purely a cleanup. S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64 wasn't used anywhere. I also considered just getting rid of it and using one constant for both list and mask.
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 427f9528a7b6..46fcd2f9dff8 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ struct s390_io_adapter { struct kvm_s390_cpu_model { /* facility mask supported by kvm & hosting machine */ - __u64 fac_mask[S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64]; + __u64 fac_mask[S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64]; struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_subfunc subfuncs; /* facility list requested by guest (in dma page) */ __u64 *fac_list;
No point in defining a size for the mask if we're not going to use it. Fixes: 9d8d578605b4 ("KVM: s390: use facilities and cpu_id per KVM") Signed-off-by: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@linux.ibm.com> --- arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)