From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 26/31] xen/x86: Rework AMD masking MSR
	setup
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:03:12 +0000
Message-ID: <56A260D0.1080804@citrix.com>
References: <1450301073-28191-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1450301073-28191-27-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<56A2041702000078000C9EAB@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<56A20C01.3010002@citrix.com>
	<56A21CD602000078000CA018@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<56A235C2.3050600@citrix.com>
	<56A246CB02000078000CA1DD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <56A246CB02000078000CA1DD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 22/01/16 14:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>>>> And then, how is this supposed to work? You only restore defaults,
>>>>> but never write non-default values. Namely, nextd is an unused
>>>>> function parameter ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I guess my comment about adding unused code needs
>>>>> repeating here.
>>>> Future patches build on this, both using the parameter, and not using
>>>> the defaults.
>>>>
>>>> I am also certain that if I did two patches, the first putting in a void
>>>> function, and the second changing it to a pointer, your review would ask
>>>> me to turn it into this.
>>> Well, I realize things will all make sense by the end of the series, but
>>> honestly in some of the cases I'm not sure the split between patches
>>> was well done.
>> If you can suggest a better ordering then I am all ears.
> For example, move all the context switch logic into the patch
> actually invoking the new hook. That still leaves more than
> enough in the AMD and Intel rework patches.

But the context switch logic is used by this patch, which is why it is
introduced here.

It takes the BSP/AP from the boot state into the default levelled state,
by passing NULL as the pointer.  See the final hunk, which modifies
early_init_amd().

~Andrew