Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: zzn39vgLgbXi0qnq6hOxjYSxFTUfMnOeTLbcYbVZadbehq2g6ta/TZK+unV7F7eQaVyIplwS+R
 U5cYyt2lTHeA==
IronPort-SDR: FrWtwjUjHLiCzh7e6Apd6mNCDEQYWBCNGa+rOe2YiIz9CR54NKkx394U05SrAObHpbfVCiQy6y
 p14f+Ww3D/yA==
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:36:11 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] KVM: nSVM: introduce
 nested_svm_load_cr3()/nested_npt_enabled()
Message-ID: <20200715043609.GF14404@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200710141157.1640173-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20200710141157.1640173-6-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20200713223814.GG29725@linux.intel.com>
 <87zh82s5gf.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87zh82s5gf.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:26:24PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
> > IMO the addition of nested_npt_enabled() should be a separate patch, and
> > the additoin of @nested_npt should be in patch 7.
> >
> > Hypothetically speaking, if nested_npt_enabled() is inaccurate at the call
> > site in nested_prepare_vmcb_save(), then this patch is technically wrong
> > even though it doesn't introduce a bug.  Given that the call site of
> > nested_svm_load_cr3() is moved in patch 7, I don't see any value in adding
> > the placeholder parameter early.
> >
> 
> I see and I mostly agree, I put it here to avoid the unneeded churn and
> make it easier to review the whole thing: this patch is technically a
> nop so it can be reviewed in "doesn't change anything" mode and patches
> which actually change things are smaller.
> 
> Paolo already said 'queued' here and your comments can't be addressed in
> a follow-up patch but I can certainly do v5 if needed.

Eh, not necessary, I didn't see that the series was in kvm/queue until after
I hit send.  Thanks!