On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 08:39 +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote: > > I'm fine with those names. Anyway, I'm fine with wither way, two bools or > > enum. > > I don't have a strong opinion, but I'd brought it up in a previous > patch series. I think that having two bools to encode three states is > less intuitive and potentially more bug prone, more so than the naming > itself (i.e., _only): > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZUO1Giju0GkUdF0o@xxxxxxxxxx/ Currently in our internal branch we switched to: exclude_private exclude_shared It came together bettter in the code that uses it. But I started to wonder if we actually really need exclude_shared. For TDX zapping private memory has to be done with more care, because it cannot be re- populated without guest coordination. But for shared memory if we are zapping a range that includes both private and shared memory, I don't think it should hurt to zap the shared memory.
