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 18:58:52 +0800 |
| |
On 2020/4/23 18:39, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:01:43 +0800 > Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I just fail to see the benefit; sure, kvm_run-> is convenient, but the > current code is just fine, and any rework should be balanced against > the cost (e.g. cluttering git annotate). >
cluttering git annotate ? Does it mean Fix xxxx ("comment"). Is it possible to solve this problem by splitting this patch?
| |