From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:02:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 35/45] KVM: s390: Manually invoke vcpu setup during kvm_arch_vcpu_create() Message-Id: <20191220170246.76ba681a.cohuck@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <20191218215530.2280-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20191218215530.2280-36-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20191220110445.3a42041a.cohuck@redhat.com> <20191220155607.GB20453@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20191220155607.GB20453@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Marc Zyngier , James Hogan , Paul Mackerras , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Paolo Bonzini , James Morse , Julien Thierry , Suzuki K Poulose , David Hildenbrand , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kurz On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:56:07 -0800 Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:04:45AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:55:20 -0800 > > Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > Rename kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() to kvm_s390_vcpu_setup() and manually call > > > the new function during kvm_arch_vcpu_create(). Define an empty > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() as it's still required for compilation. This > > > is effectively a nop as kvm_arch_vcpu_create() and kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() > > > are called back-to-back by common KVM code. Obsoleting > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() paves the way for its removal. > > > > > > Note, gmap_remove() is now called if setup fails, as s390 was previously > > > freeing it via kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(), which is called by common KVM > > > code if kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() fails. > > > > Yes, this looks like the only thing that needs to be undone > > (sca_add_vcpu() is done later in the process.) > > > > Maybe mention that gmap_remove() is for ucontrol only? I was confused > > for a moment :) > > Will do. > > Would it also make sense to open code __kvm_ucontrol_vcpu_init() in a > separate patch immediately preceding this change? That'd make it a little > more obvious why gmap_remove() is called, and it would eliminate the > "uninit" verbiage in the label, e.g.: I'm a bit undecided here; especially as I'm not sure if there are any future plans with ucontrol. I'll leave that for Christian and Janosch to decide.