On 23.04.20 12:58, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/4/23 18:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:01:43 +0800
>> Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020/4/23 0:04, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200
>>>> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
>>>>>> Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> 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?
No its about breaking git blame (and bugfix backports) for just a cosmetic improvement.
And I agree with Conny: the cost is higher than the benefit.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
