[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200428202228.GB4280@xz-x1>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:22:28 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@...hat.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/14] KVM: X86: Don't track dirty for
KVM_SET_[TSS_ADDR|IDENTITY_MAP_ADDR]
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:10:54AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
[...]
> > It will "return (0xdeadull << 48)" as you proposed in abbed4fa94f6? :-)
> >
> > Frankly speaking I always preferred zero but that's just not true any more
> > after above change. This also reminded me that maybe we should also return the
> > same thing at [1] below.
>
> Ah, I was looking at this code:
>
> if (!slot || !slot->npages)
> return 0;
>
> That means deletion returns different success values for "deletion was a
> nop" and "deletion was successful". The nop path should probably return
> (or fill in) "(unsigned long)(0xdeadull << 48)" as well.
Yep. Since I touched the line here after all, I'll directly squash this small
fix into this patch too when I repost. Thanks,
[...]
> > >
> > > > } else {
> > > > if (!slot || !slot->npages)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > + return ERR_PTR_USR(0);
> >
> > [1]
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists