On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 03:10:24PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote: > On 11/20/2025 1:29 AM, Peter Xu wrote: > > Rename the function with "_private" suffix, to show that it returns true > > only if it has an internal guest-memfd to back private pages (rather than > > in-place guest-memfd).
PS: I forgot to update here, I'll use "fully shared" to replace "in-place". > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <[email protected]> > > --- > > include/system/memory.h | 6 +++--- > > accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 6 +++--- > > system/memory.c | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/system/memory.h b/include/system/memory.h > > index 2c1a5e06b4..4428701a9f 100644 > > --- a/include/system/memory.h > > +++ b/include/system/memory.h > > @@ -1823,14 +1823,14 @@ static inline bool > > memory_region_is_romd(MemoryRegion *mr) > > bool memory_region_is_protected(MemoryRegion *mr); > > /** > > - * memory_region_has_guest_memfd: check whether a memory region has > > guest_memfd > > - * associated > > + * memory_region_has_guest_memfd_private: check whether a memory region has > > + * guest_memfd associated > > Nit: maybe change it to "guest_memfd_private associated", and maybe put this > patch after patch 5? Agree, though maybe I should do this change in the other ramblock patch (and move that one before this)? > > Otherwise, > > Reviewed-by: Xiaoyao Li <[email protected]> Thanks, -- Peter Xu
