Messages in this thread | | | From | "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 21/29] KVM: Resolve memslot ID via a hash table instead of via a static array | Date | Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:45:29 +0100 |
| |
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
| |