[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <650c2193-5299-714e-92f4-75cbff319948@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:39:39 +0800
From: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
pbonzini@...hat.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, paulus@...abs.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, maz@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
christoffer.dall@....com, peterx@...hat.com, thuth@...hat.com,
chenhuacai@...il.com
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters
On 2020/6/23 23:31, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 23.06.20 15:14, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>> In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the 'kvm_vcpu'
>> structure. For historical reasons, many kvm-related function 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@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> Tinajia,
>
> I have trouble seeing value in this particular patch. We add LOCs
> without providing any noticable benefit. All other patches in this series at
> least reduce the amount of code. So I would defer this to Paolo if he prefers
> to have this way across all architectures.
Yes, this is a full architecture optimization. Some of the architecture
optimization has been merged into the mainline. I think it is necessary
to unify this optimization. This is also the meaning of Paolo.
You can refer to the email of the previous version:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/27/16
Thanks,
Tianjia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists