On 04/02/2025 09:33, Paul Durrant wrote:
On 01/02/2025 01:38, Sean Christopherson wrote:
Pass the reference pvclock structure that's used to setup each individual
pvclock as a parameter to kvm_setup_guest_pvclock() as a preparatory step
toward removing kvm_vcpu_arch.hv_clock.
No functional change intended.
Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 5f3ad13a8ac7..06d27b3cc207 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -3116,17 +3116,17 @@ u64 get_kvmclock_ns(struct kvm *kvm)
return data.clock;
}
-static void kvm_setup_guest_pvclock(struct kvm_vcpu *v,
+static void kvm_setup_guest_pvclock(struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info
*ref_hv_clock,
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
So, here 'v' becomes 'vcpu'
struct gfn_to_pfn_cache *gpc,
unsigned int offset,
bool force_tsc_unstable)
{
- struct kvm_vcpu_arch *vcpu = &v->arch;
struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info *guest_hv_clock;
struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info hv_clock;
unsigned long flags;
- memcpy(&hv_clock, &vcpu->hv_clock, sizeof(hv_clock));
+ memcpy(&hv_clock, ref_hv_clock, sizeof(hv_clock));
read_lock_irqsave(&gpc->lock, flags);
while (!kvm_gpc_check(gpc, offset + sizeof(*guest_hv_clock))) {
@@ -3165,7 +3165,7 @@ static void kvm_setup_guest_pvclock(struct
kvm_vcpu *v,
kvm_gpc_mark_dirty_in_slot(gpc);
read_unlock_irqrestore(&gpc->lock, flags);
- trace_kvm_pvclock_update(v->vcpu_id, &hv_clock);
+ trace_kvm_pvclock_update(vcpu->vcpu_id, &hv_clock);
}
static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
@@ -3272,18 +3272,18 @@ static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct
kvm_vcpu *v)
vcpu->hv_clock.flags |= PVCLOCK_GUEST_STOPPED;
vcpu->pvclock_set_guest_stopped_request = false;
}
- kvm_setup_guest_pvclock(v, &vcpu->pv_time, 0, false);
+ kvm_setup_guest_pvclock(&vcpu->hv_clock, v, &vcpu->pv_time,
0, false);
Yet here an below you still use 'v'. Does this actually compile?
Sorry, my misreading of the patch... this is in caller context so no
problem. The inconsistent naming was misleading me.
Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
