On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 15:48 +0100, Janosch Frank wrote:
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?
Just fits at 100 columns. Want me to move it?
- 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?
Yeah, I think I did replace it, but then undid it. Probably just because it is a bit more explicit. It's used in check_gpa_range, so no, unless you want to dump the expression directly in there.
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: