Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <05b1d51b69f14bb794024f13ef4703ad1c888717.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 047/104] KVM: x86/mmu: add a private pointer to
 struct kvm_mmu_page
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, isaku.yamahata@intel.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     isaku.yamahata@gmail.com, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        erdemaktas@google.com, Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:53:11 +1200
In-Reply-To: <ec5ffd8b-acc6-a529-6241-ad96a6cf2f88@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1646422845.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
         <499d1fd01b0d1d9a8b46a55bb863afd0c76f1111.1646422845.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
         <a439dc1542539340e845d177be911c065a4e8d97.camel@intel.com>
         <ec5ffd8b-acc6-a529-6241-ad96a6cf2f88@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2022-04-07 at 15:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/7/22 01:43, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > +	if (kvm_gfn_stolen_mask(vcpu->kvm)) {
> > Please get rid of kvm_gfn_stolen_mask().
> > 
> 
> Kai, please follow the other reviews that I have posted in the last few 
> days.
> 
> Paolo
> 

Do you mean below reply?

"I think use of kvm_gfn_stolen_mask() should be minimized anyway.  I 
would rename it to to kvm_{gfn,gpa}_private_mask and not return bool."

I also mean we should not use kvm_gfn_stolen_mask().  I don't have opinion on
the new name.  Perhaps kvm_is_protected_vm() is my preference though.