2014-08-21 14:27+0200, Paolo Bonzini: > Il 21/08/2014 13:38, Radim Krčmář ha scritto: > > 2014-08-21 10:29+0200, Paolo Bonzini: > >> Il 20/08/2014 22:53, Radim Krčmář ha scritto: > >>> Introduce preempt notifiers for architecture specific code. > >>> Advantage over creating a new notifier in every arch is slightly simpler > >>> code and guaranteed call order with respect to kvm_sched_in. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++++ > >>> arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 4 ++++ > >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 4 ++++ > >>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 ++++ > >>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++++ > >> > >> What about adding them as static inlines in > >> arch/*/include/asm/kvm_host.h (except for arch/x86 of course)? > > > > All empty arch functions are in '.c' files, so it seems better to follow > > the same path. > > (And have one refactoring patch if GCC does not optimize this.) > > GCC certainly does not optimize this (unless you use LTO).
I see LTO patches in next ... do we want to move every empty arch function into headers? (It is probably going to take LTO few years to be enabled by default.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
