Am 25.07.2012 15:24, schrieb Peter Maydell: > Now we've cleared out the architecture-independent uses of > kvm_irqchip_in_kernel(), we can add a doc comment describing > what it means. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > --- > kvm.h | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
If you've cleared the arch-independent uses, can't it be moved out of the generic kvm.h? Otherwise if just the commit message is confusing me: > > diff --git a/kvm.h b/kvm.h > index 1449795..ae9df2d 100644 > --- a/kvm.h > +++ b/kvm.h > @@ -30,6 +30,17 @@ extern bool kvm_msi_via_irqfd_allowed; > > #if defined CONFIG_KVM || !defined NEED_CPU_H > #define kvm_enabled() (kvm_allowed) Could we add a white line here... > +/** > + * kvm_irqchip_in_kernel: > + * > + * Returns: true if the user asked us to create an in-kernel > + * irqchip via the "kernel_irqchip=on" machine option. > + * What this actually means is architecture and machine model > + * specific: on PC, for instance, it means that the LAPIC, > + * IOAPIC and PIT are all in kernel. This function should never > + * be used from generic target-independent code: use one of the > + * following functions or some other specific check instead. > + */ > #define kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() (kvm_kernel_irqchip) ...and here, to better group the macros and their documentation? Andreas > /** > * kvm_async_interrupt_injection: > -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
