From: Shuai Ruan <shuai.ruan@linux.intel.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, keir@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsaves
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:30:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <27236.8250917227$1459834153@news.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5702A9BC02000078000E2CF7@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:51:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 31.03.16 at 10:57, <shuai.ruan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > xsaves will not be used until supervised state is introduced in hypervisor.
> > And XSTATE_XSAVES_ONLY (indicates supervised state is understood in xen)
> > is instroduced, the use of xsaves depend on whether XSTATE_XSAVES_ONLY
>
> There's still a spelling mistake here, despite me having pointed it out
> before (you fixed one instance, but not the other). This could be
> dealt with upon commit, though.
Oh . "instroduced" :(
>
> > is set in xcr0_accum.
>
> Btw, I think this shouldn't be a #define, as it can - afaict - be derived
> from CPUID output.
Ok.
>But this can easily be a follow-up patch, even one
> that doesn't make it into 4.7.
I do not understand your meaning clearly.
Do you mean the follow-up patch ( XSTATE_XSAVES_ONLY derived from cpuid)
will not into 4.7 ? If so, when is best/proper time to send out the
follow-up patch ? I am not sure whether add the follow-up patch in this
patchset or in a sperate patch which one is ok ?
In either case I will keep working on this.
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
Thanks. I will send out V8 soon.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-05 5:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-31 8:57 [PATCH V7 0/3] xsaves bug fix Shuai Ruan
2016-03-31 8:57 ` [PATCH V7 1/3] x86/xsaves: fix overwriting between non-lazy/lazy xsaves Shuai Ruan
2016-04-04 15:51 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-05 5:30 ` Shuai Ruan [this message]
[not found] ` <20160405053023.GA16876@shuai.ruan@linux.intel.com>
2016-04-05 7:17 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-05 7:29 ` Shuai Ruan
2016-04-25 6:51 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-29 1:36 ` Shuai Ruan
[not found] ` <20160429013616.GB4359@shuai.ruan@linux.intel.com>
2016-04-29 7:05 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-31 8:57 ` [PATCH V7 2/3] x86/xsaves: fix two remained issues Shuai Ruan
2016-04-04 16:03 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-31 8:57 ` [PATCH V7 3/3] x86/xsaves: ebx may return wrong value using CPUID eax=0xdh, ecx =1 Shuai Ruan
2016-04-05 8:31 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-06 7:01 ` Shuai Ruan
[not found] ` <20160406070034.GA26357@shuai.ruan@linux.intel.com>
2016-04-07 0:29 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='27236.8250917227$1459834153@news.gmane.org' \
--to=shuai.ruan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).