Re: [PATCH v13 00/21] KVM: xen: update shared_info and vcpu_info handling

Paul Durrant
2024-02-20T17:07:21Z

On 20/02/2024 16:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 15:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:28:55 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>>> From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@amazon.com>
>>>>
>>>> This series contains a new patch from Sean added since v12 [1]:
>>>>
>>>> * KVM: s390: Refactor kvm_is_error_gpa() into kvm_is_gpa_in_memslot()
>>>>
>>>> This frees up the function name kvm_is_error_gpa() such that it can then be
>>>> re-defined in:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> *sigh*
>>>
>>> I forgot to hit "send" on this yesterday. But lucky for me, that worked out in
>>> my favor as I needed to rebase on top of kvm/kvm-uapi to avoid pointless conflicts
>>> in the uapi headeres.
>>>
>>> So....
>>>
>>> Applied to kvm-x86 xen, minus 18 and 19 (trylock stuff) and 21 (locking cleanup
>>> that we're doing elsewhere).
>>>
>>
>> Looks like you meant 17 & 18?
>
> Doh, yes.
>
>>> Paul and David, please take (another) look at the end result to make sure you don't
>>> object to any of my tweaks and that I didn't botch anything.
>>>
>>
>> What was the issue with 17? It was reasonable clean-up and I'd like to keep
>> it even without 18 being applied (and I totally understand your reasons for
>> that).
>
> I omitted it purely to avoid creating an unnecessary dependency for the trylock
> patch. That way the trylock patch (or whatever it morphs into) can be applied on
> any branch (along with the cleanup), i.e. doesn't need to be taken through kvm-x86/xen.

Ok, personally I don't see the dependency being an issue. I suspect it
will be a while before we decide what to do about the locking issue...
particularly since David is out this week, as he says.