On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

<snip>

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

  */
-#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)      \
-({                                                 \
-   unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2;               \
-   __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" :              \
-           "=a"(out1),                             \
-           "=b"(out2),                             \
-           "=c"(out3),                             \
-           "=d"(out4),                             \
-           "=S"(__dummy1),                         \
-           "=D"(__dummy2) :                        \
-           "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC),               \
-           "b"(in1),                               \
-           "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd),           \
-           "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) :               \
-           "memory");                              \
+#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4)                 \
+({                                                            \
+   unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0;                  \

Why do we need to initialize dummies?

Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
input and outout.

The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
benefit of doing this?

There are two reasons.  One is to make the code more readable and
maintainable.  Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
and document that.

But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
so it makes no sense in this file.

Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series.  I wasn't
sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.

Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for.  A number of
those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
merged...

quoted

This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
vmw_balloon.c

And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
variables to 0 in all of them...)  Now maybe that's just how the asm
functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.

quoted

quoted

quoted

The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
development easier.

We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
happen.  You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
is keeping that from happening.

So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
to a central place.  The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
to include for common guest-host communication needs.

Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
create yet-another-.h-file for your bus?  You already have 2, this would
make it 3, which seems like a lot...

Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry