On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:04:45AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:55:20 -0800
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Rename kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() to kvm_s390_vcpu_setup() and manually call
> > the new function during kvm_arch_vcpu_create(). Define an empty
> > kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() as it's still required for compilation. This
> > is effectively a nop as kvm_arch_vcpu_create() and kvm_arch_vcpu_setup()
> > are called back-to-back by common KVM code. Obsoleting
> > kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() paves the way for its removal.
> >
> > Note, gmap_remove() is now called if setup fails, as s390 was previously
> > freeing it via kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(), which is called by common KVM
> > code if kvm_arch_vcpu_setup() fails.
>
> Yes, this looks like the only thing that needs to be undone
> (sca_add_vcpu() is done later in the process.)
>
> Maybe mention that gmap_remove() is for ucontrol only? I was confused
> for a moment :)
Will do.
Would it also make sense to open code __kvm_ucontrol_vcpu_init() in a
separate patch immediately preceding this change? That'd make it a little
more obvious why gmap_remove() is called, and it would eliminate the
"uninit" verbiage in the label, e.g.:
if (kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm)) {
vcpu->arch.gmap = gmap_create(current->mm, -1UL);
if (!vcpu->arch.gmap) {
rc = -ENOMEM;
goto out_free_sie_block;
}
vcpu->arch.gmap->private = vcpu->kvm;
}
VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "create cpu %d at 0x%pK, sie block at 0x%pK", id, vcpu,
vcpu->arch.sie_block);
trace_kvm_s390_create_vcpu(id, vcpu, vcpu->arch.sie_block);
rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
if (rc)
goto out_free_ucontrol_gmap;
return 0;
out_free_ucontrol_gmap:
if (kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
gmap_remove(vcpu->arch.gmap);
out_free_sie_block:
free_page((unsigned long)(vcpu->arch.sie_block));
return rc;
}
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
