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;
Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:23:38 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com, bp@suse.de, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, joro@8bytes.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com, srutherford@google.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, venu.busireddy@oracle.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 13/18] KVM: x86: Introduce new
 KVM_FEATURE_SEV_LIVE_MIGRATION feature & Custom MSR.
Message-ID: <X8pwmoQW6VSA2SZy@google.com>
References: <X8pocPZzn6C5rtSC@google.com>
 <20201204170855.1131-1-Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201204170855.1131-1-Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> An immediate response, actually the SEV live migration patches are preferred
> over the Page encryption bitmap patches, in other words, if SEV live
> migration patches are applied then we don't need the Page encryption bitmap
> patches and we prefer the live migration series to be applied.
> 
> It is not that page encryption bitmap series supersede the live migration
> patches, they are just cut of the live migration patches. 

In that case, can you post a fresh version of the live migration series?  Paolo
is obviously willing to take a big chunk of that series, and it will likely be
easier to review with the full context, e.g. one of my comments on the standalone
encryption bitmap series was going to be that it's hard to review without seeing
the live migration aspect.

Thanks!