Re: [PATCH 1/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Refactor is_tdp_mmu_root()

[David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:39:33PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 07:07:56PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, David Matlack wrote:
> > > > Refactor is_tdp_mmu_root() into is_vcpu_using_tdp_mmu() to reduce
> > > > duplicated code at call sites and make the code more readable.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c     | 10 +++++-----
> > > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c |  2 +-
> > > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.h |  8 +++++---
> > > >  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ...
> > 
> > I'm not sure how to interpret this.
> 
> Ha!  It took me a second to figure out what "this" was.  The ellipsis is just a
> way of saying that I trimmed a chunk of text.  I throw it in specifically when
> I'm trimming part of a patch to try to make it clear that my response is jumping
> to a new context.

Ohhh, that makes sense. Thanks.

> 
> > > E.g. achieve this over 2-4 patches:
> > 
> > Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take a look at cleaning that up. I am
> > thinking of making that a separate patch series (including removing this
> > patch from this series) as the interaction between the two is entirely
> > superficial. Let me know if that makes sense.
> 
> Hmm, make 'em a separate series unless there a semantic conflicts, e.g. if you
> want to cache the result of in get_mmio_spte() or something.

Ack, will do.