[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y27jPnf48VStNRwN@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 08:05:18 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, <intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] drm/i915/gvt: switch from track_flush_slot to
track_remove_slot
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 05:07:35PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > KVMGT only cares about when a slot is indeed removed.
> > So switch to use track_remove_slot which is called when a slot is removed.
>
> This should capture the original motivation, i.e. that the existing
> ->track_flush_slot() hook is theoretically flawed. I think it also makes sense
> to call out that KVMGT undoubtedly does the wrong thing if a memslot is moved,
> but that (a) KVMGT has never supported moving memslots and (b) there's no sane
> use case for moving memslots that might be used by the guest for the GTT.
>
> Bonus points if you can figure out a way to capture the restriction in the docs,
> e.g. somewhere in gpu/i915.rst?
>
> Lastly, provide a link to the original discussion which provides even more context.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221108084416.11447-1-yan.y.zhao@intel.com
>
Got it. I'll do it next time!
Thanks
Yan
> > Cc: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>
> > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
> > ---
Powered by blists - more mailing lists