Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753966AbdCBCf7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:35:59 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34938 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753448AbdCBCf4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:35:56 -0500
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:26:27 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: add KVM request variants without barrier
Message-ID: <20170302022627.GJ13926@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <20170224195002.28030-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <20170224195002.28030-3-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <20170228073424.GL10022@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20170228074051.GM10022@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20170301170248.GD20547@potion>
 <20170302011533.GI13926@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170302011533.GI13926@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 02:26:34 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 658
Lines: 16

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 09:15:33AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:

[...]

> Meanwhile, I think it's still worthwhile to go through the patch even
> it's from cocinelle since sometimes coccinelle might do something that
> we (or only me?) didn't expect. E.g., afaik it cannot handle well with
> over-80-chars lines, so we need to wrap them on our own (I got a patch
> from the author though to fix this, but not yet tested).

Sorry I should definitely mention that that issue only exists in
special conditions, iirc like printf("string1" "string2") and when the
strings are very long, since I believe in most cases coccinelle works
perfectly well. Thanks,

-- peterx