From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751898AbdB0K3o (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 27 Feb 2017 05:29:44 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39914 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751740AbdB0K3l (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 27 Feb 2017 05:29:41 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: add KVM request variants without barrier
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20170224195002.28030-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <20170224195002.28030-3-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <096685e0-925a-03af-f4d5-349ba244241c@redhat.com>
Cc: 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>
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
Message-ID: <969967af-8acd-4c63-ee69-a453112d8434@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:18:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <096685e0-925a-03af-f4d5-349ba244241c@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:18:28 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Am 27.02.2017 um 11:02 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
> Am 24.02.2017 um 20:49 schrieb Radim Krčmář:
>> The leading underscores denote that the call is just a bitop wrapper.
> 
> Actually, the leading underscore is misleading
> 
> If we want to match the semantics of set/test/clear_bit, using a leading
> underscore might feel like using the non-atomic variants like
> __clear_bit and friends.
> 
> I'd prefer to simply drop the underscore.
> 

Okay, this is not really possible for __kvm_request_set(). Hm.....

-- 
Thanks,

David