From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAE1C4321E for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:21:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234002AbiLBQVN (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2022 11:21:13 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234015AbiLBQUy (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2022 11:20:54 -0500 Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83074ECE60; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 08:18:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1669997914; x=1701533914; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7kU26MIub+cu0n7tSsFLX1XdaUFcNgPBdV26TZeWYFY=; b=AU2ei758bfK60quDnQQa1GBEtu8uYf2Y321bLfHv6MlhKbWiobiXzdjx fcq/3L7WOccKokMDzrF3FnJg4wl2jputZkjLJBgoBApbWp6vfyEan7H1P EQdp3KbpH2HxXalk/8RJYjlC8Z6Ln24HsFytyK0AxGiWcuFgx+MKWaxWE HWgTcj0E5D1pgErVyk8yqjtsWp3EedNMTDDX8aIAdISDkAZsA3NTtGoBN 6jL09Izd9GXQeRXAn65XhMSfSKCxxtV9vCQdPvkBnqY0hJFsD/UjXNUhJ iP0Mr9mOzNnKYyL5X7rKLiOAtGlIrcBF+y4BQF8VJjaZoUR9Ercl2vDpj w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10548"; a="380274543" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,212,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="380274543" Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Dec 2022 08:17:59 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10548"; a="595493381" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,212,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="595493381" Received: from rsnyder-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.68.71]) ([10.209.68.71]) by orsmga003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Dec 2022 08:17:57 -0800 Message-ID: <93fd7ed0-5311-d6db-4d8b-b992a8f78ada@intel.com> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 08:17:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when running as Xen dom0 Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, jgross@suse.com, Boris Ostrovsky , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Alex Chiang , Venkatesh Pallipadi , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org References: <20221121102113.41893-1-roger.pau@citrix.com> <20221121102113.41893-2-roger.pau@citrix.com> <6b212148-4e3f-3ef6-7922-901175746d44@intel.com> <4a0e9f91-8d8b-84bc-c9db-7265f5b65b63@intel.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 12/2/22 04:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On the implementation side, is the proposed approach acceptable? > Mostly asking because it adds Xen conditionals to otherwise generic > ACPI code. That's a good Rafael question. But, how do other places in the ACPI code handle things like this?