linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: Scalable memslots implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:40:06 +0200
From:   "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: Scalable memslots implementation

On 20.10.2021 00:07, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> 
> For future revisions, feel free to omit the lengthy intro and just provide links
> to previous versions.

Will do.

>> On x86-64 the code was well tested, passed KVM unit tests and KVM
>> selftests with KASAN on.
>> And, of course, booted various guests successfully (including nested
>> ones with TDP MMU enabled).
>> On other KVM platforms the code was compile-tested only.
>>
>> Changes since v1:
> 
> ...
> 
>> Changes since v2:
> 
> ...
> 
>> Changes since v3:
> 
> ...
> 
>> Changes since v4:
>> * Rebase onto v5.15-rc2 (torvalds/master),
>>
>> * Fix 64-bit division of n_memslots_pages for 32-bit KVM,
>>
>> * Collect Claudio's Reviewed-by tags for some of the patches.
> 
> Heh, this threw me for a loop.  The standard pattern is to start with the most
> recent version and work backwards, that way reviewers can quickly see the delta
> for _this_ version.  I.e.
> 
>   Changes since v4:
>   ...
> 
>   Changes since v3:
>   ...
> 

I have always used the chronological order but your argument about
reviewers being able to quickly see the delta makes sense - will switch
to having the latest changes on the top in the next version.

By the way, looking at the current https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ at the
time I am writing this, while most of v3+ submissions are indeed
using the "latest on the top" order, some aren't:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210813145302.3933-1-kevin3.tang@gmail.com/T/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211015024658.1353987-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/T/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YW%2Fq70dLyF+YudyF@T590/T/ (this one uses a
hybrid approach - current version changes on the top, remaining changeset
in chronological order).

Thanks,
Maciej