Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:07:59 +0300
From:   "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc:     "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Cui, Dexuan" <decui@microsoft.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "mikelley@microsoft.com" <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm/cpa: Warn if set_memory_XXcrypted() fails
Message-ID: <20231031060759.xkiwmwuihqvqjizr@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20231027214744.1742056-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
 <20231030082714.pbma2bg2p354cuft@box.shutemov.name>
 <f4232326b949f96aa88bd40309389d4b99288fa1.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f4232326b949f96aa88bd40309389d4b99288fa1.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 04:58:37PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > It intended to get upstream alongside with the caller fixes to leak
> > memory
> > on failure, right? Maybe get it into one patchset?
> 
> Why do you think? Since the callers are smattered across various
> drivers, and those changes are now disconnected from the changes to
> CPA, I thought to just follow up each area separately. For example I
> was going to put all the hyper-v related changes together, but that
> part is RFC due to the fact that I can't really test it. The MS folks
> said they could help out there. So the different areas were feeling
> like separate series.

I am okay with doing it separately. I just was not clear on your plans
with the fixes.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov