Re: [PATCH v19 011/130] KVM: Add new members to struct kvm_gfn_range to operate on

[Edgecombe, Rick P]

On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 10:14 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > IMO, an enum will be clearer than the two flags.
> > 
> >     enum {
> >         PROCESS_PRIVATE_AND_SHARED,
> >         PROCESS_ONLY_PRIVATE,
> >         PROCESS_ONLY_SHARED,
> >     };
> 
> The code will be ugly like
> "if (== PRIVATE || == PRIVATE_AND_SHARED)" or
> "if (== SHARED || == PRIVATE_AND_SHARED)"
> 
> two boolean (or two flags) is less error-prone.

Yes the enum would be awkward to handle. But I also thought the way
this is specified in struct kvm_gfn_range is a little strange.

It is ambiguous what it should mean if you set:
 .only_private=true;
 .only_shared=true;
...as happens later in the series (although it may be a mistake).

Reading the original conversation, it seems Sean suggested this
specifically. But it wasn't clear to me from the discussion what the
intention of the "only" semantics was. Like why not?
 bool private;
 bool shared;