lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: Remove Fix me in main.c and add include statement for kvm_para.h
From
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
>
>> >> This patch removes a fix me by including linux/types.h in kvm_para.h
>> >> as stated by the fix me in main.c and also removes the comment from
>> >> main.c too.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 2 +-
>> >> include/linux/kvm_para.h | 3 +--
>> >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> >> index f961de9..7ba314b 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>> >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
>> >>
>> >> #define DEBUG
>> >>
>> >> -#include <linux/types.h> /* FIXME: kvm_para.h needs this */
>> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> >>
>> >> #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>> >> #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_para.h b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> >> index 00a97bb..21d1be2 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_para.h
>> >> @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
>> >> #define __LINUX_KVM_PARA_H
>> >>
>> >> #include <uapi/linux/kvm_para.h>
>> >> -
>> >> -
>> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> >> static inline int kvm_para_has_feature(unsigned int feature)
>> >> {
>> >> if (kvm_arch_para_features() & (1UL << feature))
>> >
>> > There's no build error reported that would indicate that this is needed,
>> > so this patch isn't justifiable.
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Good to hear a nicer reply after my stupid patch with page shifts.
>> Would you like me to send in a patch that removes this fix me
>> then?
>
> The comment is not the only thing that can be removed in the above patch.
> If you test the change and can prove why it's not needed in the changelog,
> then such a patch would be worthwhile.

I will rewrite this patch removing the comment and explain why.
Sounds good or should I remove this file too?
Nick


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-23 01:01    [W:0.078 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site