Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 05/10] xen/arm: Setup virtual paging for non-boot CPUs on hotplug/resume

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 07/05/18 15:55, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> Hi Julien,
Hi Mirela,

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 27/04/18 18:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> > >        printk("P2M: %d levels with order-%d root, VTCR 0x%lx\n",
> > > -           4 - P2M_ROOT_LEVEL, P2M_ROOT_ORDER, val);
> > > +           4 - P2M_ROOT_LEVEL, P2M_ROOT_ORDER, vtcr);
> > >          p2m_vmid_allocator_init();
> > >          /* It is not allowed to concatenate a level zero root */
> > >        BUG_ON( P2M_ROOT_LEVEL == 0 && P2M_ROOT_ORDER > 0 );
> > > -    setup_virt_paging_one((void *)val);
> > > -    smp_call_function(setup_virt_paging_one, (void *)val, 1);
> > > +    setup_virt_paging_one(NULL);
> > > +    smp_call_function(setup_virt_paging_one, NULL, 1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int cpu_virt_paging_callback(
> > > +    struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> >
> > The indentation looks wrong.
> Editor indented this for me and it looks the same as in other places
> where a notifier is defined. I did
> grep -r "struct notifier_block \*nfb,"
> to check. It looks weird but seems correct
Indeed, I am not sure why it is done like that for notifiers. I can't 
see any reason to split like that given the first parameter can fit on 
the first line without hitting the 80 columns.
So I would much prefer if we follow Xen coding style:

static int cpu_virt_paging_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
                                    unsigned long action,
                                    void *hcpu);

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel