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:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:59:22 +0800
From:   Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs
Message-ID: <20221216095922.swvqp7olwr2rgpyc@linux.intel.com>
References: <20221213062306.667649-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20221214030037.4qz6v6fvfx6of32n@linux.intel.com>
 <Y5pn2fYf5eHu8yCb@google.com>
 <20221215112436.2iqizpso5loeficn@linux.intel.com>
 <Y5toZtbdxwgCTlFT@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5toZtbdxwgCTlFT@google.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: bulk

> 
> They're definitely not too trivial.  This is just an especially rough time of
> year for reviews, e.g. end of year corporate stuff, merge window, holidays, etc.
> 

Glad to know that. Thanks!

> Part of why I haven't provided reviews is that the patches _aren't_ super trivial,
> e.g. I'm on the fence on whether mmu_is_direct() should take @vcpu or @mmu, and if
> I vote to have it take @mmu, then that'll conflict with mmu_is_nested().  So I end
> up staying silent until I can come back to it with fresh eyes to see if there's a
> better alternative, or if I'm just being nitpicky.
> 
Well, though I would prefer mmu_is_direct(), I appreciate for
being considerate. We can discuss it later. :)

B.R.
Yu