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, 26 Feb 2021 15:23:42 +0100
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc:     thomas.lendacky@amd.com, tj@kernel.org, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
        jon.grimm@amd.com, eric.vantassell@amd.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, seanjc@google.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        gingell@google.com, rientjes@google.com, dionnaglaze@google.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] cgroup: sev: Add misc cgroup controller
Message-ID: <YDkEbv9u3OBNpk6f@blackbook>
References: <20210218195549.1696769-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20210218195549.1696769-2-vipinsh@google.com>
 <YDVIdycgk8XL0Zgx@blackbook>
 <YDcuQFMbe5MaatBe@google.com>
 <YDdzcfLxsCeYxLNG@blackbook>
 <YDf6bpSxX6I5xdqZ@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0cdvV5m4yIkS6Bx1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YDf6bpSxX6I5xdqZ@google.com>
Precedence: bulk


--0cdvV5m4yIkS6Bx1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> wrote:
> My approach here is that it is the responsibility of the caller to:
> 1. Check the return value and proceed accordingly.
> 2. Ideally, let all of the usage be 0 before deactivating this resource
>    by setting capacity to 0
If the calling side can ensure itself that no new units of the resource
are used from that moment on, then it can work this way -- but describe
that in misc_cg_set_capacity() comment.

> Is the above change good?
I think both alternatives would work. But the latter (as I see it now)
would mandate dependency on CONFIG_CGROUP or it'd have to double the
similar logic itself. So maybe keeping the caller responsible explicitly
is simpler from this POV.

> Will there be any objection to extra information?
IMO it's unnecessary (stating this just for consistency reasons), no
strong opinion.

Michal

--0cdvV5m4yIkS6Bx1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=uKkz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0cdvV5m4yIkS6Bx1--