qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v3 2/9] s390x/kvm: pass values inst


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v3 2/9] s390x/kvm: pass values instead of pointers to kvm_s390_set_clock_*()
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:54:32 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0

On 25.06.2018 18:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:54:42 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 25.06.2018 17:50, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:53:45 +0200
>>> David Hildenbrand <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> We are going to factor out the TOD into a separate device and use const
>>>> pointers for device class functions where possible. We are passing right
>>>> now ordinary pointers that should never be touched when setting the TOD.
>>>> Let's just pass the values directly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  target/s390x/cpu.c       |  4 ++--
>>>>  target/s390x/kvm-stub.c  |  4 ++--
>>>>  target/s390x/kvm.c       | 12 ++++++------
>>>>  target/s390x/kvm_s390x.h |  4 ++--
>>>>  4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.c b/target/s390x/cpu.c
>>>> index c268065887..68512e3e54 100644
>>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.c
>>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.c
>>>> @@ -413,9 +413,9 @@ int s390_set_clock(uint8_t *tod_high, uint64_t 
>>>> *tod_low)  
>>>
>>> Any reason why you keep the pointers here?
>>>   
>>>>      int r = 0;
>>>>  
>>>>      if (kvm_enabled()) {
>>>> -        r = kvm_s390_set_clock_ext(tod_high, tod_low);
>>>> +        r = kvm_s390_set_clock_ext(*tod_high, *tod_low);
>>>>          if (r == -ENXIO) {
>>>> -            return kvm_s390_set_clock(tod_high, tod_low);
>>>> +            return kvm_s390_set_clock(*tod_high, *tod_low);  
>>>
>>> Especially as it would be more clean to check for !NULL before
>>> dereferencing...  
>>
>> See the next patch :)
>>
>> (I assume that refactoring code in order to rip it out does not make sense)
> 
> Add a comment in the commit message?
> 
> "Note that s390_set_clock() will be removed in a follow-on patch and
> therefore its calling convention is not changed."
> 

Sure I can do that. Thanks!

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]