lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 21/29] KVM: Resolve memslot ID via a hash table instead of via a static array
Date
On 01.12.2021 03:54, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
>>
>> Memslot ID to the corresponding memslot mappings are currently kept as
>> indices in static id_to_index array.
>> The size of this array depends on the maximum allowed memslot count
>> (regardless of the number of memslots actually in use).
>>
>> This has become especially problematic recently, when memslot count cap was
>> removed, so the maximum count is now full 32k memslots - the maximum
>> allowed by the current KVM API.
>>
>> Keeping these IDs in a hash table (instead of an array) avoids this
>> problem.
>>
>> Resolving a memslot ID to the actual memslot (instead of its index) will
>> also enable transitioning away from an array-based implementation of the
>> whole memslots structure in a later commit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
>
> Nit, your SoB should come last since you were the last person to handle the patch.
>

Thought that my SoB should come first as coming from the author of this
patch.

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst says that:
> Any further SoBs (Signed-off-by:'s) following the author's SoB are from
> people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
> development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
> as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with
> the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author.

So "further SoBs follow[] the author's SoB" and "the first SoB entry
signal[s] primary authorship".
But at the same time "SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a
patch took" - these rules contradict each other in our case.

Thanks,
Maciej

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-01 16:47    [W:0.086 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site