Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] KVM: x86: Consolidate flags for __linearize()

From: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] KVM: x86: Consolidate flags for __linearize()
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:27:58 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1313445e-1bd2-f559-edd5-e07e0d9ccda9@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZJsfIQqPQgRILn7o@google.com>

On 6/28/2023 1:40 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023, Zeng Guang wrote:
>> From: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Define a 32-bit parameter and consolidate the two bools into it.
> Please write changelogs so that they make sense without the context of the shortlog.
> In isolation, the above provides zero context.  And there's no need to provide a
> play-by-play description of the change, e.g. this can be:
>
>    Consolidate __linearize()'s @write and @fetch into a set of flags so that
>    additional flags can be added without needing more/new boolean parameters,
>    e.g. to precisely identify the access type for LASS.
>
>> __linearize() has two bool parameters write and fetch. And new flag
>> will be needed to support new feature (e.g. LAM needs a flag to skip
> s/LAM/LASS
>
>> address untag under some conditions).
> Looks like this was copy+pasted LAM.  AIUI, there is no untagging in LASS.  Please,
> please take the time to proofread what you're posting.  To you it's a minor typo,
> to others, incorrect statements like this can create a lot of confusion.

LASS and LAM attempts to apply same emulator framework. This patch as
prerequisite directly uses the one of LAM patches. But no excuse, we
will modify it to non-feature and hardware specific as you suggested.
Thanks.