Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:04:03 +0200 | From | Cornelia Huck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters |
| |
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800 > > Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > > >> In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the 'kvm_vcpu' > >> structure. Earlier than historical reasons, many kvm-related function > > > > s/Earlier than/For/ ? > > > >> parameters retain the 'kvm_run' and 'kvm_vcpu' parameters at the same time. > >> This patch does a unified cleanup of these remaining redundant parameters. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> > >> --- > >> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > >> index e335a7e5ead7..d7bb2e7a07ff 100644 > >> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > >> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > >> @@ -4176,8 +4176,9 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > >> return rc; > >> } > >> > >> -static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *kvm_run) > >> +static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > >> { > >> + struct kvm_run *kvm_run = vcpu->run; > >> struct runtime_instr_cb *riccb; > >> struct gs_cb *gscb; > >> > >> @@ -4235,7 +4236,7 @@ static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *kvm_run) > >> } > >> if (vcpu->arch.gs_enabled) { > >> current->thread.gs_cb = (struct gs_cb *) > >> - &vcpu->run->s.regs.gscb; > >> + &kvm_run->s.regs.gscb; > > > > Not sure if these changes (vcpu->run-> => kvm_run->) are really worth > > it. (It seems they amount to at least as much as the changes advertised > > in the patch description.) > > > > Other opinions? > > Agreed. It feels kind of random. Maybe just do the first line (move kvm_run from the > function parameter list into the variable declaration)? Not sure if this is better. >
There's more in this patch that I cut... but I think just moving kvm_run from the parameter list would be much less disruptive.
| |