Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390/kvm: split kvm_s390_real_to_abs

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 22.03.21 12:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.03.21 12:12, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:53:46AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
>>>>> index daba10f76936..7c72a5e3449f 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
>>>>> @@ -18,17 +18,14 @@
>>>>>      /**
>>>>>       * kvm_s390_real_to_abs - convert guest real address to guest absolute address
>>>>> - * @vcpu - guest virtual cpu
>>>>> + * @prefix - guest prefix
>>>>>       * @gra - guest real address
>>>>>       *
>>>>>       * Returns the guest absolute address that corresponds to the passed guest real
>>>>> - * address @gra of a virtual guest cpu by applying its prefix.
>>>>> + * address @gra of by applying the given prefix.
>>>>>       */
>>>>> -static inline unsigned long kvm_s390_real_to_abs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>> -						 unsigned long gra)
>>>>> +static inline unsigned long _kvm_s390_real_to_abs(u32 prefix, unsigned long gra)
>>>>
>>>> <bikeshedding>
>>>> Just a matter of taste, but maybe this could be named differently?
>>>> kvm_s390_real2abs_prefix() ? kvm_s390_prefix_real_to_abs()?
>>>> </bikeshedding>
>>>
>>> +1, I also dislike these "_.*" style functions here.
>>
>> Yes, let's bikeshed then :)
>>
>> Could you then please try to rename page_to* and everything that looks
>> similar to page2* please? I'm wondering what the response will be..
> 
> Oh, we're bikeshedding about anything now? Cool.

(I agree that real2abs is not such a good idea ;) )

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb