lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v19 011/130] KVM: Add new members to struct kvm_gfn_range to operate on
    Date
    On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 08:39 +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote:
    > > I'm fine with those names. Anyway, I'm fine with wither way, two bools or
    > > enum.
    >
    > I don't have a strong opinion, but I'd brought it up in a previous
    > patch series. I think that having two bools to encode three states is
    > less intuitive and potentially more bug prone, more so than the naming
    > itself (i.e., _only):
    > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZUO1Giju0GkUdF0o@google.com/

    Currently in our internal branch we switched to:
    exclude_private
    exclude_shared

    It came together bettter in the code that uses it.

    But I started to wonder if we actually really need exclude_shared. For TDX
    zapping private memory has to be done with more care, because it cannot be re-
    populated without guest coordination. But for shared memory if we are zapping a
    range that includes both private and shared memory, I don't think it should hurt
    to zap the shared memory.
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2024-05-27 18:04    [W:4.482 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site