t; >> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9:16 PM
> >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> >> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: rename kvm_hypercall() to
> >> epapr_hypercall()
> >>
&g
arat-R65777
>> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: rename kvm_hypercall() to
>> epapr_hypercall()
>>
>>
>> On 07.10.2013, at 17:43, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
>>
>>>>
.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: rename kvm_hypercall() to
> epapr_hypercall()
>
>
> On 07.10.2013, at 17:43, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> at least when I can avoid it. With the current code the
> >>>>>&
On 07.10.2013, at 17:43, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> at least when I can avoid it. With the current code the compiler
> would be
>> smart enough to just optimize out the complete branch.
Sure. My point is, where would you be calling that where the
>
> >>> at least when I can avoid it. With the current code the compiler
> >>> would be
> smart enough to just optimize out the complete branch.
> >>
> >> Sure. My point is, where would you be calling that where the
> >> entire file isn't predicated on (or selecting) CONFIG_
t; From: Wood Scott-B07421
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:04 AM
>>>> To: Alexander Graf
>>>> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org;
>>>> k...@vger.kernel.org; Bhushan
>>>> Bharat-R65777
>>>> Subject: R
gt; >> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org;
> >> k...@vger.kernel.org; Bhushan
> >> Bharat-R65777
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: rename kvm_hypercall() to
> >> epapr_hypercall()
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:54 +0
el.org;
>> Bhushan
>> Bharat-R65777
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: rename kvm_hypercall() to
>> epapr_hypercall()
>>
>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:54 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 02.10.2013, at 19:49, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:04 AM
> To: Alexander Graf
> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org;
> Bhushan
> Bharat-R65777
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/powerpc: r
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:54 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.10.2013, at 19:49, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:46 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 02.10.2013, at 19:42, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.10.
On 02.10.2013, at 19:49, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:46 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 02.10.2013, at 19:42, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 02.10.2013, at 19:04, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:46 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.10.2013, at 19:42, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 02.10.2013, at 19:04, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.10.
On 02.10.2013, at 19:42, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 02.10.2013, at 19:04, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 02.10.2013, at 18:40, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.10.2013, at 19:04, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 02.10.2013, at 18:40, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Won't thi
On 02.10.2013, at 19:04, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 02.10.2013, at 18:40, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 23.09.2013, at 07:23, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> static inline long kvm_hyp
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02.10.2013, at 18:40, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 23.09.2013, at 07:23, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> >>> static inline long kvm_hypercall0_1(unsigned int nr, unsigned long *r2)
> >
On 02.10.2013, at 18:40, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 23.09.2013, at 07:23, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
>>> static inline long kvm_hypercall0_1(unsigned int nr, unsigned long *r2)
>>> @@ -65,7 +54,7 @@ static inline long kvm_hypercall0_1(unsigned in
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 23.09.2013, at 07:23, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> > static inline long kvm_hypercall0_1(unsigned int nr, unsigned long *r2)
> > @@ -65,7 +54,7 @@ static inline long kvm_hypercall0_1(unsigned int nr,
> > unsigned long *r2)
> > unsigned l
On 23.09.2013, at 07:23, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> kvm_hypercall() have nothing KVM specific, so renamed to epapr_hypercall().
> Also this in moved to arch/powerpc/include/asm/epapr_hcalls.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/epapr_hcalls.h | 36 +
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 17:45 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 10:53 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> > kvm_hypercall() have nothing KVM specific, so renamed to epapr_hypercall().
> > Also this in moved to arch/powerpc/include/asm/epapr_hcalls.h
> [snip]
> > + out[0] = r4;
> > + out
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 10:53 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> kvm_hypercall() have nothing KVM specific, so renamed to epapr_hypercall().
> Also this in moved to arch/powerpc/include/asm/epapr_hcalls.h
[snip]
> + out[0] = r4;
> + out[1] = r5;
> + out[2] = r6;
> + out[3] = r7;
> + o
21 matches
Mail list logo
