On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 05:02:46PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:56:07 -0800 > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:04:45AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:55:20 -0800 > > > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Rename kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() to kvm_s390_vcpu_setup() and manually call > > > > the new function during kvm_arch_vcpu_create(). Define an empty > > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() as it's still required for compilation. This > > > > is effectively a nop as kvm_arch_vcpu_create() and kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() > > > > are called back-to-back by common KVM code. Obsoleting > > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() paves the way for its removal. > > > > > > > > Note, gmap_remove() is now called if setup fails, as s390 was previously > > > > freeing it via kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(), which is called by common KVM > > > > code if kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() fails. > > > > > > Yes, this looks like the only thing that needs to be undone > > > (sca_add_vcpu() is done later in the process.) > > > > > > Maybe mention that gmap_remove() is for ucontrol only? I was confused > > > for a moment :) > > > > Will do. > > > > Would it also make sense to open code __kvm_ucontrol_vcpu_init() in a > > separate patch immediately preceding this change? That'd make it a little > > more obvious why gmap_remove() is called, and it would eliminate the > > "uninit" verbiage in the label, e.g.: > > I'm a bit undecided here; especially as I'm not sure if there are any > future plans with ucontrol. I'll leave that for Christian and Janosch > to decide. Sounds good. Thanks for the reviews!
