Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > >> >   */
> > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) 
> > > > >> > \
> > > > >> > +({\
> > > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > > > > input and outout.
> > > > 
> > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > 
> > > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > and document that.
> > 
> > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > so it makes no sense in this file.
> 
> Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
> sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.

Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
merged...

> 
> This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> vmw_balloon.c

And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.

> > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > development easier.
> > 
> > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
> > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > is keeping that from happening.
> 
> So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> to include for common guest-host communication needs.

Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
make it 3, which seems like a lot...

thanks,

greg k-h
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Sinclair Yeh]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > >> >   */
> > > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)   
> > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > >> > +({\
> > > > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > > > > > input and outout.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > > 
> > > > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > > > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > > and document that.
> > > 
> > > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > > so it makes no sense in this file.
> > 
> > Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
> > sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
> 
> Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
> those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
> merged...
> 
> > 
> > This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> > vmw_balloon.c
> 
> And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
> variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
> functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
> 
> > > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > > development easier.
> > > 
> > > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
> > > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > > happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > > is keeping that from happening.
> > 
> > So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> > assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> > to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> > to include for common guest-host communication needs.
> 
> Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
> create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
> make it 3, which seems like a lot...

Ok, thanks.  Let me see if it make sense to use one of the existing 2
files.  Either way, I'll respin this series to include all the comments
so far.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > >> >   */
> > > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)   
> > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > >> > +({\
> > > > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > > > > > input and outout.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > > 
> > > > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > > > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > > and document that.
> > > 
> > > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > > so it makes no sense in this file.
> > 
> > Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
> > sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
> 
> Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
> those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
> merged...
> 
> > 
> > This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> > vmw_balloon.c
> 
> And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
> variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
> functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
> 
> > > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > > development easier.
> > > 
> > > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
> > > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > > happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > > is keeping that from happening.
> > 
> > So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> > assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> > to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> > to include for common guest-host communication needs.
> 
> Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
> create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
> make it 3, which seems like a lot...

Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >> >   */
> > > > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > > > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > > > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > > > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > > > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > > > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > > > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > > > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > > > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > > > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > > > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > > > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) 
> > > > > > >> > \
> > > > > > >> > +({
> > > > > > >> > \
> > > > > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  
> > > > > > >> > \
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be 
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > input and outout.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > > > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > > > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > > > > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > > > and document that.
> > > > 
> > > > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > > > so it makes no sense in this file.
> > > 
> > > Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
> > > sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
> > 
> > Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
> > those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
> > merged...
> > 
> > > 
> > > This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> > > vmw_balloon.c
> > 
> > And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
> > variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
> > functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
> > 
> > > > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > > > development easier.
> > > > 
> > > > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
> > > > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > > > happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > > > is keeping that from happening.
> > > 
> > > So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> > > assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> > > to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> > > to include for common guest-host communication needs.
> > 
> > Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
> > create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
> > make it 3, which seems like a lot...
> 
> Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
> are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
> hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.

vmmouse should include some type of "vmware bus" .h file, if it's not
the vmw_* files, what are they for?  My point being, I didn't see the
need to add another .h file when we should probably already have one for
this bus, right?

thanks,

greg k-h
___
Virtualization mailing list

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:45:28AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >> >   */
> > > > > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > > > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > > > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > > > > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > > > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)   
> > > > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > > > >> > +({  
> > > > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;
> > > > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be 
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > input and outout.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems 
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we 
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > > > > > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > > > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > > > > and document that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > > > > so it makes no sense in this file.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
> > > > sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
> > > 
> > > Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
> > > those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
> > > merged...
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> > > > vmw_balloon.c
> > > 
> > > And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
> > > variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
> > > functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
> > > 
> > > > > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > > > > development easier.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch 
> > > > > series,
> > > > > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > > > > happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > > > > is keeping that from happening.
> > > > 
> > > > So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> > > > assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> > > > to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> > > > to include for common guest-host communication needs.
> > > 
> > > Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
> > > create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
> > > make it 3, which seems like a lot...
> > 
> > Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
> > are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
> > hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.
> 
> vmmouse should include some type of "vmware bus" .h file, if 

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Sinclair Yeh]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:45:28AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >> >   */
> > > > > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > > > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > > > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > > > > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > > > > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > > > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)   
> > > > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > > > >> > +({  
> > > > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;
> > > > > > > >> >   \
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be 
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > input and outout.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems 
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we 
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > > > > > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > > > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > > > > and document that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > > > > so it makes no sense in this file.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
> > > > sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
> > > 
> > > Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
> > > those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
> > > merged...
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> > > > vmw_balloon.c
> > > 
> > > And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
> > > variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
> > > functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
> > > 
> > > > > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > > > > development easier.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch 
> > > > > series,
> > > > > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > > > > happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > > > > is keeping that from happening.
> > > > 
> > > > So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> > > > assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> > > > to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> > > > to include for common guest-host communication needs.
> > > 
> > > Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
> > > create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
> > > make it 3, which seems like a lot...
> > 
> > Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
> > are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
> > hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.
> 
> vmmouse should include some type of "vmware bus" .h file, if 

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:18:49PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> v2:
> Instead of replacing existing VMMOUSE defines, only modify enough
> to use the new VMW_PORT define.
> 
> v3:
> Use updated VMWARE_PORT() which requires hypervisor magic as an added
> parameter
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sinclair Yeh 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom 
> Reviewed-by: Alok N Kataria 
> Cc: pv-driv...@vmware.com
> Cc: linux-graphics-maintai...@vmware.com
> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov 
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann 
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman 
> Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: linux-in...@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c | 22 +++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c b/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
> index e272f06..d34e3e4 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> +#include 
>  
>  #include "psmouse.h"
>  #include "vmmouse.h"
> @@ -84,21 +85,12 @@ struct vmmouse_data {
>   * implementing the vmmouse protocol. Should never execute on
>   * bare metal hardware.
>   */
> -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)\
> -({   \
> - unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> - __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> - "=a"(out1), \
> - "=b"(out2), \
> - "=c"(out3), \
> - "=d"(out4), \
> - "=S"(__dummy1), \
> - "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> - "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> - "b"(in1),   \
> - "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> - "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> - "memory");  \
> +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)   \
> +({  \
> + unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \

Why do we need to initialize dummies?

> + VMW_PORT(in1, VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd, VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT, \
> +  VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC,  \
> +  out1, out2, out3, out4, __dummy1, __dummy2);  \
>  })
>  

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Sinclair Yeh]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:24:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:18:49PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > v2:
> > Instead of replacing existing VMMOUSE defines, only modify enough
> > to use the new VMW_PORT define.
> > 
> > v3:
> > Use updated VMWARE_PORT() which requires hypervisor magic as an added
> > parameter
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sinclair Yeh 
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom 
> > Reviewed-by: Alok N Kataria 
> > Cc: pv-driv...@vmware.com
> > Cc: linux-graphics-maintai...@vmware.com
> > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov 
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann 
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman 
> > Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > Cc: linux-in...@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c | 22 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c b/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
> > index e272f06..d34e3e4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> >  #include 
> >  #include 
> >  #include 
> > +#include 
> >  
> >  #include "psmouse.h"
> >  #include "vmmouse.h"
> > @@ -84,21 +85,12 @@ struct vmmouse_data {
> >   * implementing the vmmouse protocol. Should never execute on
> >   * bare metal hardware.
> >   */
> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > -({ \
> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > -   "memory");  \
> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
> > +({\
> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> 
> Why do we need to initialize dummies?

Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
input and outout.  So it's safer to initialize them to 0.  Since
they can potentially be an output, we can't make them a constant.

> 
> > +   VMW_PORT(in1, VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd, VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT, \
> > +VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC,  \
> > +out1, out2, out3, out4, __dummy1, __dummy2);  \
> >  })
> >  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:24:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:18:49PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
>> > v2:
>> > Instead of replacing existing VMMOUSE defines, only modify enough
>> > to use the new VMW_PORT define.
>> >
>> > v3:
>> > Use updated VMWARE_PORT() which requires hypervisor magic as an added
>> > parameter
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Sinclair Yeh 
>> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom 
>> > Reviewed-by: Alok N Kataria 
>> > Cc: pv-driv...@vmware.com
>> > Cc: linux-graphics-maintai...@vmware.com
>> > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov 
>> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann 
>> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman 
>> > Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
>> > Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> > Cc: linux-in...@vger.kernel.org
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c | 22 +++---
>> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c b/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
>> > index e272f06..d34e3e4 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/vmmouse.c
>> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> >  #include 
>> >  #include 
>> >  #include 
>> > +#include 
>> >
>> >  #include "psmouse.h"
>> >  #include "vmmouse.h"
>> > @@ -84,21 +85,12 @@ struct vmmouse_data {
>> >   * implementing the vmmouse protocol. Should never execute on
>> >   * bare metal hardware.
>> >   */
>> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
>> > -({ \
>> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
>> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
>> > -   "=a"(out1), \
>> > -   "=b"(out2), \
>> > -   "=c"(out3), \
>> > -   "=d"(out4), \
>> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
>> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
>> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
>> > -   "b"(in1),   \
>> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
>> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
>> > -   "memory");  \
>> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
>> > +({\
>> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
>>
>> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
>
> Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> input and outout.

The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
benefit of doing this?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>
> 
>
>> >> >   */
>> >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
>> >> > -({ \
>> >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
>> >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
>> >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
>> >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
>> >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
>> >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
>> >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
>> >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
>> >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
>> >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
>> >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
>> >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
>> >> > -   "memory");  \
>> >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
>> >> > +({\
>> >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
>> >>
>> >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
>> >
>> > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
>> > input and outout.
>>
>> The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
>> are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
>> using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
>> benefit of doing this?
>
> There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> and document that.

At the cost of wasting cycles though :(.

Oh well, it is not like we are polling the backdoor here, so if you do
not care about a few wasted cycles I don't have to either ;)

>
> The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> development easier.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Sinclair

-- 
Dmitry
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:18:49PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> v2:
> Instead of replacing existing VMMOUSE defines, only modify enough
> to use the new VMW_PORT define.
> 
> v3:
> Use updated VMWARE_PORT() which requires hypervisor magic as an added
> parameter

Why are these here and not below the --- line?

And no changelog text at all?  Not acceptable :(

greg k-h
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Sinclair Yeh]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >



> >> >   */
> >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> >> > -({ \
> >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> >> > -   "memory");  \
> >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
> >> > +({\
> >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> >>
> >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> >
> > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > input and outout.
> 
> The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> benefit of doing this?

There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
and document that.

The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
development easier.

Hope this helps.

Sinclair
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> > >> >   */
> > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > >> > -({ \
> > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) 
> > >> > \
> > >> > +({\
> > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> > >>
> > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > >
> > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > > input and outout.
> > 
> > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > benefit of doing this?
> 
> There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> and document that.

But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
so it makes no sense in this file.

> The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> development easier.

We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
is keeping that from happening.

thanks,

greg k-h
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT macros

[Sinclair Yeh]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh  wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > >> >   */
> > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)  \
> > > >> > -({ \
> > > >> > -   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;   \
> > > >> > -   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :  \
> > > >> > -   "=a"(out1), \
> > > >> > -   "=b"(out2), \
> > > >> > -   "=c"(out3), \
> > > >> > -   "=d"(out4), \
> > > >> > -   "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > >> > -   "=D"(__dummy2) :\
> > > >> > -   "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),   \
> > > >> > -   "b"(in1),   \
> > > >> > -   "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),   \
> > > >> > -   "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :   \
> > > >> > -   "memory");  \
> > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)   
> > > >> >   \
> > > >> > +({\
> > > >> > +   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;  \
> > > >>
> > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > >
> > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > > > input and outout.
> > > 
> > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > benefit of doing this?
> > 
> > There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
> > maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > and document that.
> 
> But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> so it makes no sense in this file.

Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.

This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
vmw_balloon.c


> 
> > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > development easier.
> 
> We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
> as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> is keeping that from happening.

So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
to include for common guest-host communication needs.


> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization