Subject: Re: [v2][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc: enable doorbell exception with CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:17:08 -0500

On 05/10/2013 01:14:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>=20
> On 07.05.2013, at 12:23, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>=20
> > CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is enough to cover all variants.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c |    2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> > index 1020119..62d4ece 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> > @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ static void kvmppc_restart_interrupt(struct =20
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > 		kvmppc_fill_pt_regs(&regs);
> > 		timer_interrupt(&regs);
> > 		break;
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64)
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL)
>=20
> The same question still holds. How is this an improvement over the =20
> previous code? Does this fix any issues for you? Is this just a =20
> coding style cleanup?

This is an improvement because CONFIG_PPC_DOORBELL is what controls =20
whether the function that is called inside the ifdef exists.

-Scott=