On 1/25/23 22:26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
Remove code duplication with regards to the CHECK_ONLY flag.
Decrease the number of indents.
No functional change indented.
Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Cosmetic only, can be dropped.
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
index 588cf70dc81e..cfd09cb43ef6 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -2794,6 +2794,7 @@ static void *mem_op_alloc_buf(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op_abs(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
{
void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)mop->buf;
+ enum gacc_mode acc_mode;
void *tmpbuf = NULL;
int r, srcu_idx;
@@ -2813,33 +2814,23 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op_abs(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
goto out_unlock;
}
- switch (mop->op) {
- case KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ: {
- if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
- r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
- } else {
- r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
- mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
- if (r == 0) {
- if (copy_to_user(uaddr, tmpbuf, mop->size))
- r = -EFAULT;
- }
- }
- break;
- }
- case KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_WRITE: {
- if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
- r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
- } else {
- if (copy_from_user(tmpbuf, uaddr, mop->size)) {
- r = -EFAULT;
- break;
- }
- r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
- mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
+ acc_mode = mop->op == KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ ? GACC_FETCH : GACC_STORE;
Would the line be too long if that variable would be initialized where
it's defined?
+ if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
+ r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, acc_mode, mop->key);
We should early return i.e. goto out_unlock.
IMHO else if, else patterns should either be switches (testing the same
variable) or kept as short as possible / be avoided.
+ } else if (acc_mode == GACC_FETCH) {
+ r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
+ mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
I'd guess it's personal taste whether you use GACC_FETCH or access_mode
but if you don't use it here then we can remove the variable all
together, no?
+ if (r)
+ goto out_unlock;
+ if (copy_to_user(uaddr, tmpbuf, mop->size))
+ r = -EFAULT;
+ } else {
+ if (copy_from_user(tmpbuf, uaddr, mop->size)) {
+ r = -EFAULT;
+ goto out_unlock;
}
- break;
- }
+ r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
+ mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
}
out_unlock:
