On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:18:33AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >
> > BTW, we may need another patch to remove the obsolete comments in
> > nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs():
>
> Ouch, indeed. Want to send a proper patch? Or provide your SoB and I'll write
> a changelog?
>
> The comment was added by commit 80154d77c922 ("KVM: VMX: cache secondary exec controls"),
> but arguably the below is the appropriate Fixes, as it's the commit that fixed the
> existing cases where KVM didn't enumerate supported-but-conditional controls.
>
> Fixes: 6defc591846d ("KVM: nVMX: include conditional controls in /dev/kvm KVM_GET_MSRS")
>
Thanks a lot, Sean, especially for sharing the commit history.
And I just sent out a patch to fix it.
One question is about the process of small cleanup patches like
this: would it be better off to include the cleanup patches as
part of a larger submission, or is it OK to be sent seperately?
Previously I submitted some small patches(e.g. [1] & [2]) but
have not received any reply. So I am just wondering, maybe those
patches are too trivial and sometimes time-wasting for the reviewers?
Any suggestion? Thanks!
B.R.
Yu
[1]: [PATCH] KVM: MMU: Add wrapper to check whether MMU is in direct mode
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg297583.html
[2]: [PATCH v2 0/2] Cleanup VMFUNC handling in KVM.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4582139.html
