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;
Message-ID: <811ec8ba-433e-b167-6a60-cf3b5ceabb63@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:20:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.1.0
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/16] KVM: selftests: move vm_phy_pages_alloc() earlier in
 file
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@google.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
References: <20211005234459.430873-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20211005234459.430873-2-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <CAL715WK2toExGW7GGWGQyzhqBijMEhQfhamyb9_eZkrU=+LKnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211021034529.gwv3hz5xhomtvnu7@amd.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211021034529.gwv3hz5xhomtvnu7@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 21/10/21 05:45, Michael Roth wrote:
>> Why move the function implementation? Maybe just adding a declaration
>> at the top of kvm_util.c should suffice.
> At least from working on other projects I'd gotten the impression that
> forward function declarations should be avoided if they can be solved by
> moving the function above the caller. Certainly don't mind taking your
> suggestion and dropping this patch if that's not the case here though.

I don't mind moving the code, so the patch is fine.

Paolo