On 2020/4/22 23:58, Christian Borntraeger 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.
Why not, `kvm_run` is equivalent to `vcpu->run`, which is also part of
the cleanup, or do you mean to put this change in another patch?
Thanks,
Tianjia
