From: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem_op function
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:48:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1b28707-c525-7cd1-64d5-6717bac5d711@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230125212608.1860251-11-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
On 1/25/23 22:26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> Remove code duplication with regards to the CHECK_ONLY flag.
> Decrease the number of indents.
> No functional change indented.
>
> Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>
>
> Cosmetic only, can be dropped.
>
>
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 588cf70dc81e..cfd09cb43ef6 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -2794,6 +2794,7 @@ static void *mem_op_alloc_buf(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
> static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op_abs(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
> {
> void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)mop->buf;
> + enum gacc_mode acc_mode;
> void *tmpbuf = NULL;
> int r, srcu_idx;
>
> @@ -2813,33 +2814,23 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op_abs(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> - switch (mop->op) {
> - case KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ: {
> - if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
> - r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
> - } else {
> - r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> - mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
> - if (r == 0) {
> - if (copy_to_user(uaddr, tmpbuf, mop->size))
> - r = -EFAULT;
> - }
> - }
> - break;
> - }
> - case KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_WRITE: {
> - if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
> - r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
> - } else {
> - if (copy_from_user(tmpbuf, uaddr, mop->size)) {
> - r = -EFAULT;
> - break;
> - }
> - r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> - mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
> + acc_mode = mop->op == KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ ? GACC_FETCH : GACC_STORE;
Would the line be too long if that variable would be initialized where
it's defined?
> + if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
> + r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, acc_mode, mop->key);
We should early return i.e. goto out_unlock.
IMHO else if, else patterns should either be switches (testing the same
variable) or kept as short as possible / be avoided.
> + } else if (acc_mode == GACC_FETCH) {
> + r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> + mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
I'd guess it's personal taste whether you use GACC_FETCH or access_mode
but if you don't use it here then we can remove the variable all
together, no?
> + if (r)
> + goto out_unlock;
> + if (copy_to_user(uaddr, tmpbuf, mop->size))
> + r = -EFAULT;
> + } else {
> + if (copy_from_user(tmpbuf, uaddr, mop->size)) {
> + r = -EFAULT;
> + goto out_unlock;
> }
> - break;
> - }
> + r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> + mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
> }
>
> out_unlock:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-03 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-25 21:25 [PATCH v6 00/14] KVM: s390: Extend MEM_OP ioctl by storage key checked cmpxchg Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:25 ` [PATCH v6 01/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Pass mop_desc via pointer Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 11:51 ` Janosch Frank
2023-01-25 21:25 ` [PATCH v6 02/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Replace macros by functions Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 12:00 ` Janosch Frank
2023-01-25 21:25 ` [PATCH v6 03/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Move testlist into main Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 12:03 ` Janosch Frank
2023-01-25 21:25 ` [PATCH v6 04/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Add bad address test Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 15:23 ` Janosch Frank
2023-01-25 21:25 ` [PATCH v6 05/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Fix typo Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 06/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Fix wrong address being used in test Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 07/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Fix integer literal Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 6:38 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 08/14] KVM: s390: Move common code of mem_op functions into functions Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 6:48 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-26 13:02 ` Janosch Frank
2023-01-26 16:47 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 17:01 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 09/14] KVM: s390: Dispatch to implementing function at top level of vm mem_op Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 12:13 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem_op function Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 12:18 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-26 13:02 ` Janosch Frank
2023-02-03 14:48 ` Janosch Frank [this message]
2023-02-03 15:32 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 11/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vcpu " Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 12/14] KVM: s390: Extend MEM_OP ioctl by storage key checked cmpxchg Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-26 8:19 ` Heiko Carstens
2023-01-26 16:10 ` Janosch Frank
2023-01-27 18:15 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-28 9:29 ` kernel test robot
2023-01-28 14:38 ` kernel test robot
2023-01-28 14:38 ` kernel test robot
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 13/14] Documentation: KVM: s390: Describe KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-01-25 21:26 ` [PATCH v6 14/14] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Add cmpxchg tests Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f1b28707-c525-7cd1-64d5-6717bac5d711@linux.ibm.com \
--to=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=scgl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).