Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters

From: Cornelia Huck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:04:03 +0200

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
> > Tianjia Zhang <[email-masked]> 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/ ?
> >   
> >> 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 <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> >>  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?  
> 
> Agreed. It feels kind of random. Maybe just do the first line (move kvm_run from the
> function parameter list into the variable declaration)? Not sure if this is better.
> 

There's more in this patch that I cut... but I think just moving
kvm_run from the parameter list would be much less disruptive.