Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108162-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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:50:15 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "binbin.wu@linux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	"Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>,
	"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>,
	"Chen, Bo2" <chen.bo@intel.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Yuan, Hang" <hang.yuan@intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 011/130] KVM: Add new members to struct kvm_gfn_range
 to operate on
Message-ID: <20240319215015.GA1994522@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <e324ff5e47e07505648c0092a5370ac9ddd72f0b.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <2daf03ae-6b5a-44ae-806e-76d09fb5273b@linux.intel.com>
 <20240313171428.GK935089@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <52bc2c174c06f94a44e3b8b455c0830be9965cdf.camel@intel.com>
 <1d1da229d4bd56acabafd2087a5fabca9f48c6fc.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1d1da229d4bd56acabafd2087a5fabca9f48c6fc.camel@intel.com>

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:47:47PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 19:50 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 10:14 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > > IMO, an enum will be clearer than the two flags.
> > > > 
> > > >     enum {
> > > >         PROCESS_PRIVATE_AND_SHARED,
> > > >         PROCESS_ONLY_PRIVATE,
> > > >         PROCESS_ONLY_SHARED,
> > > >     };
> > > 
> > > The code will be ugly like
> > > "if (== PRIVATE || == PRIVATE_AND_SHARED)" or
> > > "if (== SHARED || == PRIVATE_AND_SHARED)"
> > > 
> > > two boolean (or two flags) is less error-prone.
> > 
> > Yes the enum would be awkward to handle. But I also thought the way
> > this is specified in struct kvm_gfn_range is a little strange.
> > 
> > It is ambiguous what it should mean if you set:
> >  .only_private=true;
> >  .only_shared=true;
> > ...as happens later in the series (although it may be a mistake).
> > 
> > Reading the original conversation, it seems Sean suggested this
> > specifically. But it wasn't clear to me from the discussion what the
> > intention of the "only" semantics was. Like why not?
> >  bool private;
> >  bool shared;
> 
> I see Binbin brought up this point on v18 as well:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/6220164a-aa1d-43d2-b918-6a6eaad769fb@linux.intel.com/#t
> 
> and helpfully dug up some other discussion with Sean where he agreed
> the "_only" is confusing and proposed the the enum:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/ZUO1Giju0GkUdF0o@google.com/
> 
> He wanted the default value (in the case the caller forgets to set
> them), to be to include both private and shared. I think the enum has
> the issues that Isaku mentioned. What about?
> 
>  bool exclude_private;
>  bool exclude_shared;
> 
> It will become onerous if more types of aliases grow, but it clearer
> semantically and has the safe default behavior.

I'm fine with those names. Anyway, I'm fine with wither way, two bools or enum.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>