[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a6e393c6a1f99ee45b9020fbd2ac70f48c980b4.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 23:50:58 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
<seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "sagis@...gle.com"
<sagis@...gle.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com"
<isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com"
<dmatlack@...gle.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for
TDP MMU
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 16:47 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > How about we leave option 1 as a separate patch and note it is not
> > functionally
> > required? Then we can shed it if needed. At the least it can serve as a
> > conversation piece in the meantime.
>
> Ok. We understand the situation correctly. I think it's okay to do nothing for
> now with some notes somewhere as record because it doesn't affect much for
> usual
> case.
I meant we include your proposed option 1 as a separate patch in the next
series. I'm writing am currently writing a log for the iterator changes, and
I'll note it as an issue. And then we include this later in the same series. No?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists