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 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.