From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
"Wanpeng Li" <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
"Jim Mattson" <jmattson@google.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Julien Thierry" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:40:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <595b5ecc-d18b-3973-7041-59e58d7f1cc7@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191217204041.10815-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
On 17.12.19 21:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so
> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as
> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of
> memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address
> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots.
> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces
> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes.
>
> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small,
> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 17/19 and 18/19.
>
> Patches 2-16 clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty,
> especially __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly
> necessary to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely
> reasonable level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing
> without first doing the clean up.
>
> The only functional change in v4 is the addition of an x86-specific bug
> fix in x86's handling of KVM_MR_MOVE. The bug fix is not directly related
> to dynamically allocating memslots, but it has subtle and hidden conflicts
> with the cleanup patches, and the fix is higher priority than anything
> else in the series, i.e. should be merged first.
>
> On non-x86 architectures, v3 and v4 should be functionally equivalent,
> the only non-x86 change in v4 is the dropping of a "const" in
> kvm_arch_commit_memory_region().
I gave this series a quick spin and it still seems to work on s390 (minus the selftest).
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: "Wanpeng Li" <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, "Jim Mattson" <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:40:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <595b5ecc-d18b-3973-7041-59e58d7f1cc7@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191217204041.10815-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
On 17.12.19 21:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so
> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as
> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of
> memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address
> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots.
> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces
> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes.
>
> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small,
> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 17/19 and 18/19.
>
> Patches 2-16 clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty,
> especially __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly
> necessary to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely
> reasonable level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing
> without first doing the clean up.
>
> The only functional change in v4 is the addition of an x86-specific bug
> fix in x86's handling of KVM_MR_MOVE. The bug fix is not directly related
> to dynamically allocating memslots, but it has subtle and hidden conflicts
> with the cleanup patches, and the fix is higher priority than anything
> else in the series, i.e. should be merged first.
>
> On non-x86 architectures, v3 and v4 should be functionally equivalent,
> the only non-x86 change in v4 is the dropping of a "const" in
> kvm_arch_commit_memory_region().
I gave this series a quick spin and it still seems to work on s390 (minus the selftest).
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: "Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
"Wanpeng Li" <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
"Julien Thierry" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
"Jim Mattson" <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:40:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <595b5ecc-d18b-3973-7041-59e58d7f1cc7@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191217204041.10815-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
On 17.12.19 21:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so
> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as
> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of
> memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address
> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots.
> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces
> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes.
>
> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small,
> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 17/19 and 18/19.
>
> Patches 2-16 clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty,
> especially __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly
> necessary to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely
> reasonable level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing
> without first doing the clean up.
>
> The only functional change in v4 is the addition of an x86-specific bug
> fix in x86's handling of KVM_MR_MOVE. The bug fix is not directly related
> to dynamically allocating memslots, but it has subtle and hidden conflicts
> with the cleanup patches, and the fix is higher priority than anything
> else in the series, i.e. should be merged first.
>
> On non-x86 architectures, v3 and v4 should be functionally equivalent,
> the only non-x86 change in v4 is the dropping of a "const" in
> kvm_arch_commit_memory_region().
I gave this series a quick spin and it still seems to work on s390 (minus the selftest).
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
"Wanpeng Li" <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
"Jim Mattson" <jmattson@google.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Julien Thierry" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:40:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <595b5ecc-d18b-3973-7041-59e58d7f1cc7@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191217204041.10815-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
On 17.12.19 21:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so
> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as
> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of
> memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address
> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots.
> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces
> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes.
>
> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small,
> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 17/19 and 18/19.
>
> Patches 2-16 clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty,
> especially __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly
> necessary to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely
> reasonable level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing
> without first doing the clean up.
>
> The only functional change in v4 is the addition of an x86-specific bug
> fix in x86's handling of KVM_MR_MOVE. The bug fix is not directly related
> to dynamically allocating memslots, but it has subtle and hidden conflicts
> with the cleanup patches, and the fix is higher priority than anything
> else in the series, i.e. should be merged first.
>
> On non-x86 architectures, v3 and v4 should be functionally equivalent,
> the only non-x86 change in v4 is the dropping of a "const" in
> kvm_arch_commit_memory_region().
I gave this series a quick spin and it still seems to work on s390 (minus the selftest).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-18 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 160+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-17 20:40 [PATCH v4 00/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 01/19] KVM: x86: Allocate new rmap and large page tracking when moving memslot Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 21:56 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 21:56 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 21:56 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 21:56 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:37 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:37 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:37 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:37 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 02/19] KVM: Reinstall old memslots if arch preparation fails Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 03/19] KVM: Don't free new memslot if allocation of said memslot fails Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 04/19] KVM: PPC: Move memslot memory allocation into prepare_memory_region() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 05/19] KVM: x86: Allocate memslot resources during prepare_memory_region() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:07 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:07 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:07 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:07 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 06/19] KVM: Drop kvm_arch_create_memslot() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 07/19] KVM: Explicitly free allocated-but-unused dirty bitmap Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:24 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:24 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:24 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:24 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-18 16:17 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-18 16:17 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-18 16:17 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-18 16:17 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 08/19] KVM: Refactor error handling for setting memory region Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 09/19] KVM: Move setting of memslot into helper routine Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 10/19] KVM: Drop "const" attribute from old memslot in commit_memory_region() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 11/19] KVM: x86: Free arrays for old memslot when moving memslot's base gfn Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 22:48 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:48 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:48 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 22:48 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 12/19] KVM: Move memslot deletion to helper function Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 13/19] KVM: Simplify kvm_free_memslot() and all its descendents Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 14/19] KVM: Clean up local variable usage in __kvm_set_memory_region() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 15/19] KVM: Provide common implementation for generic dirty log functions Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 16/19] KVM: Ensure validity of memslot with respect to kvm_get_dirty_log() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-24 18:19 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-24 18:19 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-24 18:19 ` Peter Xu
2019-12-24 18:19 ` Peter Xu
2020-01-14 18:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-14 18:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-14 18:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-14 18:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-02-06 22:03 ` Peter Xu
2020-02-06 22:03 ` Peter Xu
2020-02-06 22:03 ` Peter Xu
2020-02-06 22:03 ` Peter Xu
2020-02-07 18:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-02-07 18:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-02-07 18:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-02-07 18:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 17/19] KVM: Terminate memslot walks via used_slots Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 18/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot array based on number of used slots Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` [PATCH v4 19/19] KVM: selftests: Add test for KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-17 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-18 11:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 16:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-18 16:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-18 16:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-18 16:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-24 9:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-03-24 9:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-03-24 9:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-03-24 9:43 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-03-24 18:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-24 18:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-24 18:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-24 18:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-12-18 11:40 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2019-12-18 11:40 ` [PATCH v4 00/19] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:40 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 11:40 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 18:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-12-18 18:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-12-18 18:10 ` Marc Zyngier
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=595b5ecc-d18b-3973-7041-59e58d7f1cc7@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=f4bug@amsat.org \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.