RE: [PATCH] KVM: Add the missing stub function for kvm_dirty_ring_check_request()

[Shameerali Kolothum Thodi]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Christopherson [mailto:seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 16 March 2023 19:57
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gshan@xxxxxxxxxx;
> maz@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add the missing stub function for
> kvm_dirty_ring_check_request()
> 
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> > > From: Sean Christopherson [mailto:seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx] On Thu, Mar 16,
> > > 2023, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > > > The stub for !CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING case is missing.
> > >
> > > No stub is needed.  kvm_dirty_ring_check_request() isn't called from
> > > common code, and should not (and isn't unless I'm missing something)
> > > be called from arch code unless CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING=y.
> > >
> > > x86 and arm64 are the only users, and they both select
> > > HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING unconditionally when KVM is enabled.
> >
> > Yes, it is at present not called from anywhere other than x86 and arm64.
> > But I still think since it is a common helper, better to have a stub.
> 
> Why?  It buys us nothing other than dead code, and even worse it could let
> a bug that would otherwise be caught during build time escape to run time.

Agree, it buys nothing now:) It just came up while I was playing with a custom
build without HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING. Since all other functions there has a stub
just thought it would make it easier for future common usage. We could very well
leave it till that comes up as well.

Thanks,
Shameer