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:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 17:26:25 +0800
From:   Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Use the common definition - 'GPA_INVALID' for
 X86
Message-ID: <20221213092534.tvmmhff6rvhhpefv@linux.intel.com>
References: <20221209023622.274715-1-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
 <Y5gTFPxUTXDsQb5p@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5gTFPxUTXDsQb5p@google.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 05:52:20AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> What if we rename GPA_INVALID to INVALID_GPA and modify _those_ users?  I have
> a slight preference for INVALID_GPA, and we also have INVALID_PAGE.  It'll also
> yield a smaller diff.
> 
> EVMPTR_INVALID is the counter argument, but that's more of an error code than a
> semi-arbitrary value, e.g. there's also EVMPTR_MAP_PENDING.
> 
> $ git grep GPA_INVALID | wc -l
> 17
> $ git grep INVALID_GPA | wc -l
> 55
> 

Good point. Thanks!

B.R.
Yu