[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z4ooZmdcf7O0SNve@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:52:38 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: <seanjc@...gle.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
<kai.huang@...el.com>, <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
<tony.lindgren@...el.com>, <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
<dmatlack@...gle.com>, <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: TDX SEPT SEAMCALL retry
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 12:07:00PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 1:53 AM Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com> wrote:
> > For the first, hmm, a bad thing is that though
> > tdh_mem_sept_add()/tdh_mem_page_aug()/tdh_mem_sept_add() all need to handle
> > TDX_OPERAND_BUSY, the one for tdh_mem_page_aug() has already been squashed
> > into the MMU part 2.
> >
> > If you like, maybe I can extract the one for tdh_mem_page_aug() and merge it
> > with 1+5.
>
> That works for me, but if it's easier for you to merge the fixups in
> the respective base patches that's okay too.
Then I'll merge them into the respective base patches to save effort and make
the latter cleaner :)
Thank you, Paolo!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists