Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] memory: Introduce PrivateSharedManager Interface as child of GenericStateManager

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 27.04.25 03:40, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2025 8:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 07.04.25 09:49, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
>>> To manage the private and shared RAM states in confidential VMs,
>>> introduce a new class of PrivateShareManager as a child of
>>> GenericStateManager, which inherits the six interface callbacks. With a
>>> different interface type, it can be distinguished from the
>>> RamDiscardManager object and provide the flexibility for addressing
>>> specific requirements of confidential VMs in the future.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> See my other mail, likely this is going into the wrong direction.
>>
>> If we want to abstract more into a RamStateManager, then it would have
>> to have two two sets of states, and allow for registering a provider for
>> each of the states.
>>
>> It would then merge these informations.
>>
>> But the private vs. shared provider and the plugged vs. unplugged
>> provider would not be a subclass of the RamStateManager.
>>
>> They would have a different interface.
>>
>> (e.g., RamDiscardStateProvider vs. RamPrivateStateProvider)
> 
> Got it! Before the real use case (guest_memfd + virtio-mem) comes, I
> would keep the original design.

Yes, absolutely fine with me.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb