[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2def9fa-375e-d677-32a2-b1bb0e8d3fb6@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:11:18 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] KVM: selftests: Take vcpu pointer instead of id in
vm_vcpu_rm()
On 13/04/20 23:26, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> FWIW, I think the whole vcpuid thing is a bad interface, almost all the
> tests end up defining an arbitrary number for the sole VCPU_ID, i.e. the
> vcpuid interface just adds a pointless layer of obfuscation. I haven't
> looked through all the tests, but returning the vcpu and making the struct
> opaque, same as kvm_vm, seems like it would yield more readable code with
> less overhead.
Yes, I agree. This was in the original Google submission, I didn't like
it either but I didn't feel like changing it and I wouldn't mind if
someone does the work...
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists