[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e69406690a063874f72267cd656dbb8f393c6e47.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:36:22 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "nik.borisov@...e.com"
<nik.borisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] KVM: TDX: Premap initial guest memory
On Wed, 2024-09-11 at 12:39 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:30 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
> <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> > Arh, yes this has details that are not relevant to the patch.
> >
> > Squashing it seems fine, but I wasn't sure about whether we actually needed
> > this
> > nr_premapped. It was one of the things we decided to punt a decision on in
> > order
> > to continue our debates on the list. So we need to pick up the debate again.
>
> I think keeping nr_premapped is safer.
Heh, well it's not hurting anything except adding a small amount of complexity,
so I guess we can cancel the debate. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists