Hi Paolo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:14 PM > To: Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Mark Rutland <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Suzuki Poulose <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Capper > <[email protected]>; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China) > <[email protected]>; Justin He (Arm Technology China) > <[email protected]>; nd <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64 > > On 16/10/19 09:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 16/10/19 05:52, Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) wrote: > >> This func used only by kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock and nothing to do with > >> kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn. Also it can be merged into > >> kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock. > >> > > > > Your patches also have no user for kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock, so you can > > remove it. > > Nevermind. I misread patch 2. However, to remove the confusion, can you > rename kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn to kvm_arch_ptp_get_crosststamp? >
the suffix of this function name is reserved from its arch-independent caller ptp_kvm_get_time_fn, so if I change this function name It will be better change them whole. I think "ptp_get_crosststamp" is a better suffix. Thanks Jianyong > Paolo
