On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:32:29 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 03:20 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
> >> @@ -918,18 +919,38 @@ static int __must_check __deliver_virtio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> return rc ? -EFAULT : 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int __do_deliver_io(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_s390_io_info *io)
> >> +{
> >> + int rc;
> >> +
> >> + rc = put_guest_lc(vcpu, io->subchannel_id, (u16 *)__LC_SUBCHANNEL_ID);
> >> + rc |= put_guest_lc(vcpu, io->subchannel_nr, (u16 *)__LC_SUBCHANNEL_NR);
> >> + rc |= put_guest_lc(vcpu, io->io_int_parm, (u32 *)__LC_IO_INT_PARM);
> >> + rc |= put_guest_lc(vcpu, io->io_int_word, (u32 *)__LC_IO_INT_WORD);
> >> + rc |= write_guest_lc(vcpu, __LC_IO_OLD_PSW,
> >> + &vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw,
> >> + sizeof(psw_t));
> >> + rc |= read_guest_lc(vcpu, __LC_IO_NEW_PSW,
> >> + &vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw,
> >> + sizeof(psw_t));
> >
> > These should now it into less lines.
>
> The last two lines are way beyond 80.
>
> Can you factor that change out into
> > a separate patch?
>
>
> Unless Conny agrees that this is absolutely mandatory I would like to avoid that.
I don't think factoring this out would be very useful.
