Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <2bcaa193-5454-f0a1-8fb9-5f61c95d87f6@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Date:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 01:21:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>
References: <20220311032801.3467418-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <08548cb00c4b20426e5ee9ae2432744d6fa44fe8.camel@redhat.com>
 <YjzjIhyw6aqsSI7Q@google.com>
 <e64d9972-339c-c661-afbd-38f1f2ea476a@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <Yj5KCqtu7KZiGtgN@google.com>
From:   "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] KVM: x86: Event/exception fixes and cleanups
In-Reply-To: <Yj5KCqtu7KZiGtgN@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 26.03.2022 00:02, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> So, what's the plan here: is your patch set Sean considered to supersede
>> Maxim's earlier proposed changes or will you post an updated patch set
>> incorporating at least some of them?
> 
> Next step is to reach a consensus on how we want to solve the problem (or if we
> can't reach consensus, until Paolo uses his special powers).  I definitely won't
> post anything new until there's more conversation.

Ack.

>> I am asking because I have a series that touches the same general area
>> of KVM [1] and would preferably have it based on the final form of the
>> event injection code to avoid unforeseen negative interactions between
>> these changes.
> 
> I don't think you need to do anything, at a glance your changes are orthogonal
> even though they have similar themes.  Any conflicts should be minor.

All right - I will try to keep an eye on the developments related to the
event injection code just to be sure there are no obvious conflicts here.

Thanks,
Maciej