From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters References: <20200422125810.34847-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200422125810.34847-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200422154543.2efba3dd.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Tianjia Zhang Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:54:35 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200422154543.2efba3dd.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Cornelia Huck 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, 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, maz@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com, peterx@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.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 On 2020/4/22 21:45, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800 > Tianjia Zhang wrote: > >> In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the 'kvm_vcpu' >> structure. Earlier than historical reasons, many kvm-related function > > s/Earlier than/For/ ? > Yes, it should be replaced like this. >> 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 >> --- >> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> index e335a7e5ead7..d7bb2e7a07ff 100644 >> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> @@ -4176,8 +4176,9 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> return rc; >> } >> >> -static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *kvm_run) >> +static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> { >> + struct kvm_run *kvm_run = vcpu->run; >> struct runtime_instr_cb *riccb; >> struct gs_cb *gscb; >> >> @@ -4235,7 +4236,7 @@ static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *kvm_run) >> } >> if (vcpu->arch.gs_enabled) { >> current->thread.gs_cb = (struct gs_cb *) >> - &vcpu->run->s.regs.gscb; >> + &kvm_run->s.regs.gscb; > > Not sure if these changes (vcpu->run-> => kvm_run->) are really worth > it. (It seems they amount to at least as much as the changes advertised > in the patch description.) > > Other opinions? > Why not replace `vcpu->run->` to `kvm_run->` ? If not, there will be both styles of code, which is confusing. I will be confused and think that this is something different. Thanks, Tianjia >> restore_gs_cb(current->thread.gs_cb); >> } >> preempt_enable();