On 27.04.25 03:40, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
On 4/25/2025 8:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 07.04.25 09:49, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
To manage the private and shared RAM states in confidential VMs,
introduce a new class of PrivateShareManager as a child of
GenericStateManager, which inherits the six interface callbacks. With a
different interface type, it can be distinguished from the
RamDiscardManager object and provide the flexibility for addressing
specific requirements of confidential VMs in the future.
Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@xxxxxxxxx>
---
See my other mail, likely this is going into the wrong direction.
If we want to abstract more into a RamStateManager, then it would have
to have two two sets of states, and allow for registering a provider for
each of the states.
It would then merge these informations.
But the private vs. shared provider and the plugged vs. unplugged
provider would not be a subclass of the RamStateManager.
They would have a different interface.
(e.g., RamDiscardStateProvider vs. RamPrivateStateProvider)
Got it! Before the real use case (guest_memfd + virtio-mem) comes, I
would keep the original design.
Yes, absolutely fine with me.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
