On 1/25/22 10:59, Jinrong Liang wrote:
From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
The "struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu" parameter of kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr()
is not used, so remove it. No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index df46d0737b85..22b73b918884 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -5003,8 +5003,7 @@ static int kvm_set_guest_paused(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return 0;
}
-static int kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
- struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
+static int kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
{
int r;
@@ -5099,7 +5098,7 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_device_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
switch (ioctl) {
case KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR:
- r = kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(vcpu, &attr);
+ r = kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(&attr);
break;
case KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR:
r = kvm_arch_tsc_get_attr(vcpu, &attr);
I can't make my mind on this. I think it's better to have the argument
in case some attributes depend on VM capabilities in the future.
Paolo
