On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800 Tianjia Zhang <[email protected]> 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 protected]> > --- > 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(); _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
