On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 12:21:46PM -0400, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > +bool memory_region_can_be_private(MemoryRegion *mr)
> > +{
> > + return mr->ram_block && mr->ram_block->gmem_fd >= 0;
> > +}
>
> This is not really MAP_PRIVATE, am I right? If so, is there still chance
> we rename it (it seems to be also in the kernel proposal all across..)?
Yes and yes.
> I worry it can be very confusing in the future against MAP_PRIVATE /
> MAP_SHARED otherwise.
Heh, it's already quite confusing at times. I'm definitely open to naming that
doesn't collide with MAP_{PRIVATE,SHARED}, especially if someone can come with a
naming scheme that includes a succinct way to describe memory that is shared
between two or more VMs, but is accessible to _only_ those VMs.
