On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:54:50 +0000, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 00:53:36 +0000, > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023, Yu Zhang wrote: > > > KVM already has a 'GPA_INVALID' defined as (~(gpa_t)0) in kvm_types.h, > > > and it is used by ARM code. We do not need another definition of > > > 'INVALID_GPA' for X86 specifically. > > > > > > Instead of using the common 'GPA_INVALID' for X86, replace it with > > > 'INVALID_GPA', and change the users of 'GPA_INVALID' so that the diff > > > can be smaller. Also because the name 'INVALID_GPA' tells the user we > > > are using an invalid GPA, while the name 'GPA_INVALID' is emphasizing > > > the GPA is an invalid one. > > > > > > No functional change intended. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Marc and/or Oliver, > > > > Do you want to grab this since most of the changes are to arm64? > > I'll happily take it through x86, but generating a conflict in arm64 > > seems infinitely more likely. > > > > Do you mind acking it then, at least for the x86 part? Duh, ignore me, I haven't had enough coffee yet... I'll coordinate with Oliver on how to queue this. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
