From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CB8C433EF for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232524AbiDGX0K (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:26:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48014 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231713AbiDGX0G (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:26:06 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A713C14B01F; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:24:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1649373845; x=1680909845; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O1b7WIeGUo0TmUs3OQt7Z4FLbzIJnxs4mxV2Cjhvoh0=; b=c/UiCojz08sBfVgqHXN6V9WkkLAxKpcUzYykqc8WMttrwQ6/zeRfbFm6 Hos96jsSmJRwS9pURKygrFnectqET6ulqYHn3xM5BX8ms30/s2NTAjZD6 95agqFUnjKplfj9eFM/wndMQrX2iZA9q/FT01TXjIkasAhqy2SSbhFD+3 g6c4ushPhPMnbW/j3YyuMPgx60Zt+2TRGVZtiW+loyt5/Dh5UZevV98a5 wwNbw+R+MKl9f0uUpRWrN8RKHDyE0XqXmtO5TUja5VNgvOO9iHnODq6Zj XpcV/Nw/pqdEkCIzlNyGcPYVOPCVp2BoVIiqE490gr2aqnmcAx3MQAPua Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10310"; a="322152346" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,242,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="322152346" Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2022 16:24:05 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,242,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="524571247" Received: from asaini1-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO khuang2-desk.gar.corp.intel.com) ([10.254.28.162]) by orsmga002-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2022 16:24:02 -0700 Message-ID: <4515f55c1717e963989e3d5e8640636d5ed2f25f.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 047/104] KVM: x86/mmu: add a private pointer to struct kvm_mmu_page From: Kai Huang To: Paolo Bonzini , isaku.yamahata@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: isaku.yamahata@gmail.com, Jim Mattson , erdemaktas@google.com, Connor Kuehl , Sean Christopherson Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:24:00 +1200 In-Reply-To: <7dabd2a6-bc48-6ada-f2f1-f9e30370be2f@redhat.com> References: <499d1fd01b0d1d9a8b46a55bb863afd0c76f1111.1646422845.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com> <05b1d51b69f14bb794024f13ef4703ad1c888717.camel@intel.com> <7dabd2a6-bc48-6ada-f2f1-f9e30370be2f@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-1.fc35) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 01:03 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 4/8/22 00:53, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > Do you mean below reply? > > > > "I think use of kvm_gfn_stolen_mask() should be minimized anyway. I > > would rename it to to kvm_{gfn,gpa}_private_mask and not return bool." > > > > I also mean we should not use kvm_gfn_stolen_mask(). I don't have opinion on > > the new name. Perhaps kvm_is_protected_vm() is my preference though. > > But this is one of the case where it would survive, even with the > changed name. > > Paolo > Perhaps I confused you (sorry about that). Yes we do need the check here. I just dislike the function name. -- Thanks, -Kai