Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-90866-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 07:39:52 -0800
In-Reply-To: <754f2fcf-fc00-4f89-a17c-a80bbec1e2ff@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240227232100.478238-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20240227232100.478238-14-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <754f2fcf-fc00-4f89-a17c-a80bbec1e2ff@intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZeXrSECZ-CVvk32W@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/21] KVM: x86/mmu: Pass around full 64-bit error code
 for KVM page faults
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	michael.roth@amd.com, isaku.yamahata@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 7:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> > 
> ...
> > The use of lower_32_bits() moves from kvm_mmu_page_fault() to
> > FNAME(page_fault), since walking is independent of the data in the
> > upper bits of the error code.
> 
> Is it a must? I don't see any issue if full u64 error_code is passed to
> FNAME(page_fault) as well.

Heh, my thought as well.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240228024147.41573-5-seanjc@google.com