Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <7dabd2a6-bc48-6ada-f2f1-f9e30370be2f@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 01:03:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 047/104] KVM: x86/mmu: add a private pointer to
 struct kvm_mmu_page
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.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>
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>
 <05b1d51b69f14bb794024f13ef4703ad1c888717.camel@intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <05b1d51b69f14bb794024f13ef4703ad1c888717.camel@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/8/22 00:53, Kai Huang wrote:
>>
> 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.

But this is one of the case where it would survive, even with the 
changed name.

Paolo