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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > 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.
