Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <5cfee0930c4665481480d00bcb334b8c8c161426.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: s390: cpu model: Use previously unused constant
From:   Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@linux.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 06 Nov 2023 12:00:19 +0100
In-Reply-To: <47d18f06-13b2-4ec5-b601-eb9a2738f06b@redhat.com>
References: <20231103173008.630217-1-nsg@linux.ibm.com>
         <20231103173008.630217-4-nsg@linux.ibm.com>
         <4c3cec3c-da81-426c-815b-afee1de68947@redhat.com>
         <47d18f06-13b2-4ec5-b601-eb9a2738f06b@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 19:41 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.11.23 19:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 03.11.23 18:30, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> > > No point in defining a size for the mask if we're not going to use it=
.
> >=20
> > I neither understand the patch description nor what the bug is that is
> > being fixed (and how that description relates to the patch
> > subject+description).
> >=20
> > Please improve the patch description.
> >=20
>=20
> Should this be
>=20
> "
> KVM: s390: cpu model: use proper define for facility mask size
>=20
> We're using S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64 instead of=20
> S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64 to define the array size of the facility=20
> mask. Let's properly use S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64. Note that both
> values are the same and, therefore, this is a pure cleanup.
> "
>=20
> I'm not convinced there is a bug and that this deserves a "Fixes:".

Oh yeah, sorry, purely a cleanup. S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64 wasn't
used anywhere. I also considered just getting rid of it and using one
constant for both list and mask.