Re: [PATCH v13 00/21] KVM: xen: update shared_info and vcpu_info handling

[Paul Durrant]

On 20/02/2024 16:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > On 20/02/2024 15:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:28:55 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > This series contains a new patch from Sean added since v12 [1]:
> > > >
> > > > * KVM: s390: Refactor kvm_is_error_gpa() into kvm_is_gpa_in_memslot()
> > > >
> > > > This frees up the function name kvm_is_error_gpa() such that it can then be
> > > > re-defined in:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > *sigh*
> > >
> > > I forgot to hit "send" on this yesterday.  But lucky for me, that worked out in
> > > my favor as I needed to rebase on top of kvm/kvm-uapi to avoid pointless conflicts
> > > in the uapi headeres.
> > >
> > > So....
> > >
> > > Applied to kvm-x86 xen, minus 18 and 19 (trylock stuff) and 21 (locking cleanup
> > > that we're doing elsewhere).
> >
> > Looks like you meant 17 & 18?
>
> Doh, yes.
>
> > > Paul and David, please take (another) look at the end result to make sure you don't
> > > object to any of my tweaks and that I didn't botch anything.
> >
> > What was the issue with 17? It was reasonable clean-up and I'd like to keep
> > it even without 18 being applied (and I totally understand your reasons for
> > that).
>
> I omitted it purely to avoid creating an unnecessary dependency for the trylock
> patch.  That way the trylock patch (or whatever it morphs into) can be applied on
> any branch (along with the cleanup), i.e. doesn't need to be taken through kvm-x86/xen.

Ok, personally I don't see the dependency being an issue. I suspect it 
will be a while before we decide what to do about the locking issue... 
particularly since David is out this week, as he says.