lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 21/29] KVM: Resolve memslot ID via a hash table instead of via a static array
    Date
    On 01.12.2021 03:54, Sean Christopherson wrote:
    > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
    >> From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
    >>
    >> Memslot ID to the corresponding memslot mappings are currently kept as
    >> indices in static id_to_index array.
    >> The size of this array depends on the maximum allowed memslot count
    >> (regardless of the number of memslots actually in use).
    >>
    >> This has become especially problematic recently, when memslot count cap was
    >> removed, so the maximum count is now full 32k memslots - the maximum
    >> allowed by the current KVM API.
    >>
    >> Keeping these IDs in a hash table (instead of an array) avoids this
    >> problem.
    >>
    >> Resolving a memslot ID to the actual memslot (instead of its index) will
    >> also enable transitioning away from an array-based implementation of the
    >> whole memslots structure in a later commit.
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
    >> Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
    >
    > Nit, your SoB should come last since you were the last person to handle the patch.
    >

    Thought that my SoB should come first as coming from the author of this
    patch.

    Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst says that:
    > Any further SoBs (Signed-off-by:'s) following the author's SoB are from
    > people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
    > development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
    > as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with
    > the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author.

    So "further SoBs follow[] the author's SoB" and "the first SoB entry
    signal[s] primary authorship".
    But at the same time "SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a
    patch took" - these rules contradict each other in our case.

    Thanks,
    Maciej

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-12-01 16:47    [W:3.416 / U:1.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site