On 20/02/2024 16:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
On 20/02/2024 15:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:28:55 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
This series contains a new patch from Sean added since v12 [1]:
* KVM: s390: Refactor kvm_is_error_gpa() into kvm_is_gpa_in_memslot()
This frees up the function name kvm_is_error_gpa() such that it can then be
re-defined in:
[...]
*sigh*
I forgot to hit "send" on this yesterday. But lucky for me, that worked out in
my favor as I needed to rebase on top of kvm/kvm-uapi to avoid pointless conflicts
in the uapi headeres.
So....
Applied to kvm-x86 xen, minus 18 and 19 (trylock stuff) and 21 (locking cleanup
that we're doing elsewhere).
Looks like you meant 17 & 18?
Doh, yes.
Paul and David, please take (another) look at the end result to make sure you don't
object to any of my tweaks and that I didn't botch anything.
What was the issue with 17? It was reasonable clean-up and I'd like to keep
it even without 18 being applied (and I totally understand your reasons for
that).
I omitted it purely to avoid creating an unnecessary dependency for the trylock
patch. That way the trylock patch (or whatever it morphs into) can be applied on
any branch (along with the cleanup), i.e. doesn't need to be taken through kvm-x86/xen.
Ok, personally I don't see the dependency being an issue. I suspect it
will be a while before we decide what to do about the locking issue...
particularly since David is out this week, as he says.
