Re: [PATCH v15 02/21] KVM: Rename CONFIG_KVM_GENERIC_PRIVATE_MEM to CONFIG_KVM_GENERIC_GMEM_POPULATE

[Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 18:33, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > > The below diff applies on top.  I'm guessing there may be some intermediate
> > > ugliness (I haven't mapped out exactly where/how to squash this throughout the
> > > series, and there is feedback relevant to future patches), but IMO this is a much
> > > cleaner resting state (see the diff stats).
> >
> > So just so that I am clear, applying the diff below to the appropriate
> > patches would address all the concerns that you have mentioned in this
> > email?
>
> Yes?  It should, I just don't want to pinky swear in case I botched something.

Other than this patch not applying, nah, I think it's all good ;P. I
guess base-commit: 9eba3a9ac9cd5922da7f6e966c01190f909ed640 is
somewhere in a local tree of yours. There are quite a few conflicts
and I don't think it would build even if based on the right tree,
e.g.,  KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP is a rename of KVM_CAP_GMEM_MMAP,
rather an addition of an undeclared identifier.

That said, I think I understand what you mean, and I can apply the
spirit of this patch.

Stay tuned for v16.
/fuad

> But goofs aside, yes, if the end result looks like what was the below, I'm happy.
> Again, things might get ugly in the process, i.e. might be temporariliy gross,
> but that's ok (within reason).