Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters | From | Tianjia Zhang <> | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:01:43 +0800 |
| |
On 2020/4/23 0:04, Cornelia Huck wrote: > 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. >
I think there are two kinds of code(`vcpu->run->` and `kvm_run->`), but there will be more disruptive, not less.
Thanks, Tianjia
| |