Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:45:43 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run'
 parameters
Message-ID: <20200422154543.2efba3dd.cohuck@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200422125810.34847-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
References: <20200422125810.34847-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
        <20200422125810.34847-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> 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 <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  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?

>  			restore_gs_cb(current->thread.gs_cb);
>  		}
>  		preempt_enable();