MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230310220332.5309-1-michael.christie@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230310220332.5309-1-michael.christie@oracle.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 11 Mar 2023 09:21:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgenic8Ba1WxNP=9YJXk78k9Sg6R7RLkhduYjtVy2gdkg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Use copy_process in vhost layer
To:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>
Cc:     hch@infradead.org, stefanha@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
        mst@redhat.com, sgarzare@redhat.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, brauner@kernel.org,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 2:04=E2=80=AFPM Mike Christie
<michael.christie@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> The following patches were made over Linus's tree and apply over next. Th=
ey
> allow the vhost layer to use copy_process instead of using
> workqueue_structs to create worker threads for VM's devices.

Ok, all these patches looked fine to me from a quick scan - nothing
that I reacted to as objectionable, and several of them looked like
nice cleanups.

The only one I went "Why do you do it that way" for was in 10/11
(entirely internal to vhost, so I don't feel too strongly about this)
how you made "struct vhost_worker" be a pointer in "struct vhost_dev".

It _looks_ to me like it could just have been an embedded structure
rather than a separate allocation.

IOW, why do

   vhost_dev->worker

instead of doing

  vhost_dev.worker

and just having it all in the same allocation?

Not a big deal. Maybe you wanted the 'test if worker pointer is NULL'
code to stay around, and basically use that pointer as a flag too. Or
maybe there is some other reason you want to keep that separate..

               Linus