[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/SHiFHRsQM43VgC@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:36:40 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Brijesh <brijesh.singh@....com>, Jon <jon.grimm@....com>,
Eric <eric.vantassell@....com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, lizefan@...wei.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
corbet@....net, joro@...tes.org, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
Matt Gingell <gingell@...gle.com>,
Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 0/2] cgroup: KVM: New Encryption IDs cgroup controller
Happy new year!
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:02:37PM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> I like the idea of having a separate controller to keep the code simple and
> easier for maintenance.
Yeah, the more I think about it, keeping it separate seems like the right
thing to do. What bothers me primarily is that the internal logic is
identical between the RDMA controller and this one. If you wanna try
factoring them out into library, great. If not, I don't think it should
block merging this controller. We can get to refactoring later.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists