On 2020/4/22 21:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
Tianjia Zhang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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/ ?

Yes, it should be replaced like this.

quoted

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 <redacted>
---
  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?

Why not replace `vcpu->run->` to `kvm_run->` ? If not, there will be 
both styles of code, which is confusing. I will be confused and think 
that this is something different.

Thanks,
Tianjia

quoted

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