On Tue, Jun 23, 2026, Ackerley Tng wrote: > Binbin Wu <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 6/19/2026 8:31 AM, Ackerley Tng via B4 Relay wrote: > >> From: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> > >> > >> When memory attributes become trackable in guest_memfd, the concept of > >> having private memory is no longer dependent on > >> CONFIG_KVM_VM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES. > >> > >> With this, on x86, kvm_arch_has_private_mem() is defined if some CoCo > >> platform support (or the testing CONFIG_KVM_SW_PROTECTED_VM) is compiled > >> in. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> > >> Co-developed-by: Ackerley Tng <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Ackerley Tng <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Binbin Wu <[email protected]> > > > > One nit below. > > > >> --- > >> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 +++- > >> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +- > >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >> b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >> index 8e8eb8a5e8a6b..1bde67cf6eb0e 100644 > >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >> @@ -2394,7 +2394,9 @@ void kvm_configure_mmu(bool enable_tdp, int > >> tdp_forced_root_level, > >> int tdp_max_root_level, int tdp_huge_page_level); > >> > >> > >> -#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_VM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES > >> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_SW_PROTECTED_VM) || \ > >> + defined(CONFIG_KVM_INTEL_TDX) || \ > >> + defined(CONFIG_KVM_AMD_SEV) > > > > Nit: > > Vertically align the defined(XXX) statements for better readability? > > > > Sean had this aligned with spaces, and checkpatch complained about
checkpatch is a tool, it is neither omniscient nor authoritative. And for things like this, the *entire* purpose for rules/guildlines like "no tabs after spaces" is to help ensure the code is easier to read, e.g. doesn't end up with wonky formatting when viewed in certain editors or whatever. So, ignore checkpatch if it complains about formatting that is visually superior to what makes checkpatch happy. > having no spaces before tabs, so I switched it to tabs instead since I > don't think alignment like that is officially documented either way. This exact case may not be "officially" documented, but the general gist is in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst: When splitting function declarations or function calls, then please align the first argument in the second line with the first argument in the first line:: And there is lots and lots of prior art on-list (from me and others) that is more or less as good as official documentation. > Either way is fine :) Please restore the alignment.
