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

[Tianjia Zhang]

On 2020/4/23 0:04, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
> > > Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >   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.

I think there are two kinds of code(`vcpu->run->` and `kvm_run->`), but 
there will be more disruptive, not less.

Thanks,
Tianjia