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;
Message-ID: <5c5e274f-a09c-8a90-f7b1-51f969dd4c2d@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:31:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] KVM: x86: Remove unused "vcpu" of
 kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     Xianting Tian <xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220125095909.38122-1-cloudliang@tencent.com>
 <20220125095909.38122-17-cloudliang@tencent.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220125095909.38122-17-cloudliang@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/25/22 10:59, Jinrong Liang wrote:
> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
> 
> The "struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu" parameter of kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr()
> is not used, so remove it. No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 ++---
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index df46d0737b85..22b73b918884 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -5003,8 +5003,7 @@ static int kvm_set_guest_paused(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static int kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> -				 struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> +static int kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>   {
>   	int r;
>   
> @@ -5099,7 +5098,7 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_device_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>   
>   	switch (ioctl) {
>   	case KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR:
> -		r = kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(vcpu, &attr);
> +		r = kvm_arch_tsc_has_attr(&attr);
>   		break;
>   	case KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR:
>   		r = kvm_arch_tsc_get_attr(vcpu, &attr);

I can't make my mind on this.  I think it's better to have the argument 
in case some attributes depend on VM capabilities in the future.

Paolo