From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39340 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725915AbgEEIkC (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 04:40:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 09:39:59 +0100 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] KVM: arm64: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters In-Reply-To: <20200427043514.16144-3-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20200427043514.16144-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200427043514.16144-3-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> Message-ID: <35eb095a344b4192b912385bc02c54e6@kernel.org> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tianjia Zhang Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, paulus@ozlabs.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, james.morse@arm.com, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com, peterx@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, chenhuacai@gmail.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Tianjia, On 2020-04-27 05:35, Tianjia Zhang wrote: > In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the > 'kvm_vcpu' > structure. For historical reasons, many kvm-related function parameters > retain the 'kvm_run' and 'kvm_vcpu' parameters at the same time. This > patch does a unified cleanup of these remaining redundant parameters. > > Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang On the face of it, this looks OK, but I haven't tried to run the resulting kernel. I'm not opposed to taking this patch *if* there is an agreement across architectures to take the series (I value consistency over the janitorial exercise). Another thing is that this is going to conflict with the set of patches that move the KVM/arm code back where it belongs (arch/arm64/kvm), so I'd probably cherry-pick that one directly. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...