Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kvm/x86 : Remove redundant function implement
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?5b2t5rWpKFJpY2hhcmQp?= <richard.peng@oppo.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <HKAPR02MB4291D5926EA10B8BFE9EA0D3E0B70@HKAPR02MB4291.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <87h7w9skmr.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <629b1ca1-66a3-f616-71a9-3fda3b03aeb4@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 15:36:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87h7w9skmr.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 21/05/20 11:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> 彭浩(Richard) <richard.peng@oppo.com> writes:
> 
>> pic_in_kernel(),ioapic_in_kernel() and irqchip_kernel() have the
>> same implementation.
> 'pic_in_kernel()' name is misleading, one may think this is about lapic
> and it's not. Also, ioapic_in_kernel() doesn't have that many users, can
> we maybe converge on using irqchip_*() functions everywhere?
> 

Richard's patch was my recommendation actually.

PIC is not the LAPIC and not the IOAPIC; even though right now the
implementation is the same for pic_in_kernel and ioapic_in_kernel and
irqchip_kernel(), that's more or less an implementation detail.

Paolo