On 8/21/25 13:49, Mukesh R wrote:
On 8/21/25 12:24, Michael Kelley wrote:
From: Mukesh R <mrat...@linux.microsoft.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025
7:58 PM
On 8/20/25 17:31, Mukesh R wrote:
On 4/15/25 11:07, mhkelle...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Kelley <mhkli...@outlook.com>
<snip>
IMHO, this is unnecessary change that just obfuscates code. With status quo
one has the advantage of seeing what exactly is going on, one can use the
args any which way, change batch size any which way, and is thus flexible.
I started this patch set in response to some errors in open coding the
use of hyperv_pcpu_input/output_arg, to see if helper functions could
regularize the usage and reduce the likelihood of future errors. Balancing
the pluses and minuses of the result, in my view the helper functions are
an improvement, though not overwhelmingly so. Others may see the
tradeoffs differently, and as such I would not go to the mat in arguing the
patches must be taken. But if we don't take them, we need to go back and
clean up minor errors and inconsistencies in the open coding at some
existing hypercall call sites.
Yes, definitely. Assuming Nuno knows what issues you are referring to,
I'll work with him to get them addressed asap. Thanks for noticing them.
If Nuno is not aware, I'll ping you for more info.
Talked to Nuno, he's not aware of anything pending or details. So if you
can kindly list them out here, I will make sure it gets addressed right
away.
Thanks,
-Mukesh
<deleted>
