Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-186854-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 17:01:00 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for
 TDP MMU
Message-ID: <20240523000100.GE212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20240517090348.GN168153@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <d7b5a1e327d6a91e8c2596996df3ff100992dc6c.camel@intel.com>
 <20240517191630.GC412700@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20240520233227.GA29916@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <a071748328e5c0a85d91ea89bb57c4d23cd79025.camel@intel.com>
 <20240521161520.GB212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20240522223413.GC212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <9bc661643e3ce11f32f0bac78a2dbfd62d9cd283.camel@intel.com>
 <20240522234754.GD212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <4a6e393c6a1f99ee45b9020fbd2ac70f48c980b4.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4a6e393c6a1f99ee45b9020fbd2ac70f48c980b4.camel@intel.com>

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:50:58PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 16:47 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > How about we leave option 1 as a separate patch and note it is not
> > > functionally
> > > required? Then we can shed it if needed. At the least it can serve as a
> > > conversation piece in the meantime.
> > 
> > Ok. We understand the situation correctly. I think it's okay to do nothing for
> > now with some notes somewhere as record because it doesn't affect much for
> > usual
> > case.
> 
> I meant we include your proposed option 1 as a separate patch in the next
> series. I'm writing am currently writing a log for the iterator changes, and
> I'll note it as an issue. And then we include this later in the same series. No?

Ok, Let's include the patch.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>