From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: Reason for extra struct kvm_run parameter in MMIO handling?
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:30:45 +0000
Message-ID: <54D4FA45.1000103@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
To: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:64529 "EHLO
	cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735AbbBFRa5 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:30:57 -0500
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Hi,

while reworking the ARM vGIC emulation layer to use the kvm_io_bus
framework, I wonder why the whole KVM MMIO handling always passes the
pointer to struct kvm_run along with the struct kvm_vcpu pointer.
As kvm_run is a member of kvm_vcpu, the vcpu alone should be sufficient,
right?
Also I see the very top of the call chain is effectively:
kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(vcpu, vcpu->run);

So is that just legacy code still lingering around from the dawn of time
and nobody dared to rework this or is there a particular reason for
doing so?

I am asking because I lack the kvm_run pointer in the MMIO handler, so I
just use vcpu->run and I wonder if there are potential issues in doing so.

Cheers,
Andre.