Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] x86/virt/tdx: Handle concurrent callers in tdx_pamt_get/put()

[Sohil Mehta]

>> I'd just add a changelog blurb to handwave it away for the moment:
>>
>> 	The pamt_refcount[]s are atomic_t's. They do not strictly need
>> 	to be because all access is protected by pamt_lock. The overhead
>> 	of an atomic_t in this situation is minuscule compared to the
>> 	global lock. Leave the (unnecessary) atomic_t in place to enable
>> 	future optimization with minimal churn.
>>

The atomic_t is introduced primarily by this patch (and slightly by the
previous one).

Instead of "Leave the atomic_t in place", would it be more appropriate
to say "Use an (unnecessary) atomic_t to enable future ..."?

>> Does that work for everybody?
> 

Yes, this works.

> Works for me, thanks.