Re: [RFC v2 02/11] cpus: pass CPUState to run_on_cpu helpers

[Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>]

On 11/07/16 15:36, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 07/06/2016 11:14 PM, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> From: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>>
>> CPUState is a fairly common pointer to pass to these helpers. This means
>> if you need other arguments for the async_run_on_cpu case you end up
>> having to do a g_malloc to stuff additional data into the routine. For
>> the current users this isn't a massive deal but for MTTCG this gets
>> cumbersome when the only other parameter is often an address.
>>
>> This adds the typedef run_on_cpu_func for helper functions which has an
>> explicit CPUState * passed as the first parameter. All the users of
>> run_on_cpu and async_run_on_cpu have had their helpers updated to use
>> CPUState where available.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> [Sergey Fedorov:
>>  - eliminate more CPUState in user data;
>>  - remove unnecessary user data passing;
>>  - fix target-s390x/kvm.c and target-s390x/misc_helper.c]
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <sergey.fedorov@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>>  - eliminate more CPUState in user data
>>  - remove unnecessary user data passing
>>  - fix target-s390x/kvm.c and target-s390x/misc_helper.c
>>
>> ---
>>  cpus.c                     | 15 ++++---
>>  hw/i386/kvm/apic.c         |  3 +-
>>  hw/i386/kvmvapic.c         |  6 +--
>>  hw/ppc/ppce500_spin.c      | 31 +++++----------
>>  hw/ppc/spapr.c             |  6 +--
>>  hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c       | 17 ++++----
>>  include/qom/cpu.h          |  8 ++--
>>  kvm-all.c                  | 21 ++++------
>>  target-i386/helper.c       | 19 ++++-----
>>  target-i386/kvm.c          |  6 +--
>>  target-s390x/cpu.c         |  4 +-
>>  target-s390x/cpu.h         |  7 +---
>>  target-s390x/kvm.c         | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>  target-s390x/misc_helper.c |  4 +-
>>  14 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-)
> s390 parts look ok.

Can this be considered as "Acked-by" or not exactly?

Thanks,
Sergey