On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:45:33 +0800 Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2020/4/16 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 2020-04-16 08:03, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > >> Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> In earlier versions of kvm, 'kvm_run' is an independent structure > >>> and is not included in the vcpu structure. At present, 'kvm_run' > >>> is already included in the vcpu structure, so the parameter > >>> 'kvm_run' is redundant. > >>> > >>> This patch simplify the function definition, removes the extra > >>> 'kvm_run' parameter, and extract it from the 'kvm_vcpu' structure > >>> if necessary. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> v2 change: > >>> remove 'kvm_run' parameter and extract it from 'kvm_vcpu' > >>> > >>> arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 3 ++- > >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 3 ++- > >>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 3 ++- > >>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 ++++++----- > >>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +- > >>> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 6 +++--- > >>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +- > >>> 7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > Overall, there is a large set of cleanups to be done when both the vcpu > > and the run > > structures are passed as parameters at the same time. Just grepping the > > tree for > > kvm_run is pretty instructive. > > > > M. > > Sorry, it's my mistake, I only compiled the x86 platform, I will submit > patch again. I think it's completely fine (and even preferable) to do cleanups like that on top. [FWIW, I compiled s390 here.]
