On 22.05.25 15:22, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2025, Ackerley Tng wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index de7b46ee1762..f9bb025327c3 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -2560,6 +2560,7 @@ static inline bool kvm_mem_is_private(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t *pfn, struct page **page,
int *max_order);
+int kvm_gmem_mapping_order(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn);
#else
static inline int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm,
struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn,
@@ -2569,6 +2570,12 @@ static inline int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm,
KVM_BUG_ON(1, kvm);
return -EIO;
}
+static inline int kvm_gmem_mapping_order(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
+ gfn_t gfn)
Probably should indent with two tabs here.
Yup!
Nope! :-)
In KVM, please align the indentation as you did.
: Yeah, that way of indenting is rather bad practice. Especially for new
: code we're adding or when we touch existing code, we should just use two
: tabs.
: That way, we can fit more stuff into a single line, and when doing
: simple changes, such as renaming the function or changing the return
: type, we won't have to touch all the parameters.
At the cost of readability, IMO. The number of eyeballs that read the code is
orders of magnitude greater than the number of times a function's parameters end
up being shuffled around. Sacrificing readability and consistenty to avoid a
small amount of rare churn isn't a good tradeoff.
I new KVM wanted to be weird! :P
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
