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;
Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:33:20 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        David Dunn <daviddunn@google.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] KVM: x86/mmu: Add try_get_mt_mask to x86_ops
Message-ID: <YlS6wG5szNPPEFcs@google.com>
References: <20220321224358.1305530-1-bgardon@google.com>
 <20220321224358.1305530-8-bgardon@google.com>
 <YlSzI9ZfzPQZhPqj@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YlSzI9ZfzPQZhPqj@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> And as a bonus, if we use 0/-errno, then we can use KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0()
> and SVM doesn't need to provide an implementation.

Gah, got ahead of myself.  If we go this route, the caller would need to ensure
it initializes mt_mask.  Probabably not worth it, so scratch that idea.  I also
though about overloading the return type, e.g.

	mt_mask = ...
	if (mt_mask < 0)
		return false;

But again, probably not a net positive.