Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   linmiaohe <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
CC:     "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "rkrcmar@redhat.com" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        "james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        "suzuki.poulose@arm.com" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        "christoffer.dall@arm.com" <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
        "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "andre.przywara@arm.com" <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: get rid of var ret and out jump label in
 kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug()
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: get rid of var ret and out jump label in
 kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug()
Thread-Index: AdXMEOY3ibkFZKiqSOySikptaJRgWA==
Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:03:59 +0000
Message-ID: <36f01951fb09465e9981b870c536eea5@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing code.
> It may not be to your own taste, but is in keeping with a lot of the KVM code.
>
> If you were making changes to this code, I wouldn't object.
> But on its own, this is just churn.
>
> Thanks,
>
>          M.

Oh, I see. Many thanks for your reply and patient explaination.