On 2020/4/22 21:45, 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/ ?
Yes, it should be replaced like this.
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?
Why not replace `vcpu->run->` to `kvm_run->` ? If not, there will be
both styles of code, which is confusing. I will be confused and think
that this is something different.
Thanks,
Tianjia
restore_gs_cb(current->thread.gs_cb);
}
preempt_enable();
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
