On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 01:03 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/8/22 00:53, Kai Huang wrote:
> > >
> > Do you mean below reply?
> >
> > "I think use of kvm_gfn_stolen_mask() should be minimized anyway. I
> > would rename it to to kvm_{gfn,gpa}_private_mask and not return bool."
> >
> > I also mean we should not use kvm_gfn_stolen_mask(). I don't have opinion on
> > the new name. Perhaps kvm_is_protected_vm() is my preference though.
>
> But this is one of the case where it would survive, even with the
> changed name.
>
> Paolo
>
Perhaps I confused you (sorry about that). Yes we do need the check here. I
just dislike the function name.
--
Thanks,
-Kai
