On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 09:21:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 2:04 PM Mike Christie > <michael.chris...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > The following patches were made over Linus's tree and apply over next. They > > allow the vhost layer to use copy_process instead of using > > workqueue_structs to create worker threads for VM's devices. > > Ok, all these patches looked fine to me from a quick scan - nothing > that I reacted to as objectionable, and several of them looked like > nice cleanups. > > The only one I went "Why do you do it that way" for was in 10/11 > (entirely internal to vhost, so I don't feel too strongly about this) > how you made "struct vhost_worker" be a pointer in "struct vhost_dev". > > It _looks_ to me like it could just have been an embedded structure > rather than a separate allocation. > > IOW, why do > > vhost_dev->worker > > instead of doing > > vhost_dev.worker > > and just having it all in the same allocation? > > Not a big deal. Maybe you wanted the 'test if worker pointer is NULL' > code to stay around, and basically use that pointer as a flag too. Or > maybe there is some other reason you want to keep that separate.. > > Linus
I agree with Linus here, slightly better embedded, but no huge deal. Which tree is this going on? If not mine here's my ack: Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
