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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: x86: Invoke hypercall when page encryption
 status is changed
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     seanjc@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, joro@8bytes.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        srutherford@google.com, venu.busireddy@oracle.com,
        brijesh.singh@amd.com
References: <cover.1619193043.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <ff68a73e0cdaf89e56add5c8b6e110df881fede1.1619193043.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <YJvU+RAvetAPT2XY@zn.tnic> <20210513043441.GA28019@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <YJ4n2Ypmq/7U1znM@zn.tnic>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <7ac12a36-5886-cb07-cc77-a96daa76b854@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 10:03:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YJ4n2Ypmq/7U1znM@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 14/05/21 09:33, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Ok, so explain to me how this looks from the user standpoint: she starts
> migrating the guest, it fails to lookup an address, there's nothing
> saying where it failed but the guest crashed.
> 
> Do you think this is user-friendly?

Ok, so explain to me how this looks from the submitter standpoint: he 
reads your review of his patch, he acknowledges your point with "Yes, it 
makes sense to signal it with a WARN or so", and still is treated as shit.

Do you think this is friendly?

Paolo