RE: [PATCH v5 5/6] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64

[Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China)]

Hi Paolo,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:14 PM
> To: Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) <Jianyong.Wu@xxxxxxx>;
> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yangbo.lu@xxxxxxx; john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx;
> tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx; maz@xxxxxxxxxx;
> richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@xxxxxxx>;
> will@xxxxxxxxxx; Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve Capper
> <Steve.Capper@xxxxxxx>; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China)
> <Kaly.Xin@xxxxxxx>; Justin He (Arm Technology China)
> <Justin.He@xxxxxxx>; nd <nd@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64
> 
> On 16/10/19 09:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 16/10/19 05:52, Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> >> This func used only by kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock and nothing to do with
> >> kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn. Also it can be merged into
> >> kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock.
> >>
> >
> > Your patches also have no user for kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock, so you can
> > remove it.
> 
> Nevermind.  I misread patch 2.  However, to remove the confusion, can you
> rename kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn to kvm_arch_ptp_get_crosststamp?
> 

the suffix of this function name is reserved from its arch-independent caller ptp_kvm_get_time_fn, so if I change this function name
It will be better change them whole. I think "ptp_get_crosststamp" is a better suffix.

Thanks
Jianyong 

> Paolo