All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Narrow PMU sysreg reset values to architectural requirements
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:48:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae510501-0410-47b1-77f3-cb83d3b1fa9e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210713135900.1473057-2-maz@kernel.org>

Hi Marc,

On 7/13/21 2:58 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> A number of the PMU sysregs expose reset values that are not in
> compliant with the architecture (set bits in the RES0 ranges,
> for example).
>
> This in turn has the effect that we need to pointlessly mask
> some register when using them.
>
> Let's start by making sure we don't have illegal values in the
> shadow registers at reset time. This affects all the registers
> that dedicate one bit per counter, the counters themselves,
> PMEVTYPERn_EL0 and PMSELR_EL0.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index f6f126eb6ac1..95ccb8f45409 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -603,6 +603,44 @@ static unsigned int pmu_visibility(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	return REG_HIDDEN;
>  }
>  
> +static void reset_pmu_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	u64 n, mask;
> +
> +	/* No PMU available, any PMU reg may UNDEF... */
> +	if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
> +		return;
> +
> +	n = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT;

Isn't this going to cause a lot of unnecessary traps with NV? Is that going to be
a problem? Because at the moment I can't think of an elegant way to avoid it,
other than special casing PMCR_EL0 in kvm_reset_sys_regs() and using here
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0). Or, even better, using
kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask(vcpu), since this is identical to what that function does.

> +	n &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
> +
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +
> +	mask = BIT(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);

PMSWINC_EL0 has bit 31 RES0. Other than that, looked at all the PMU registers and
everything looks correct to me.

Thanks,

Alex

> +	if (n)
> +		mask |= GENMASK(n - 1, 0);
> +
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= mask;
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmevcntr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= GENMASK(31, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmevtyper(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_MASK;
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmselr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= ARMV8_PMU_COUNTER_MASK;
> +}
> +
>  static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
>  {
>  	u64 pmcr, val;
> @@ -944,16 +982,18 @@ static bool access_pmuserenr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
>  	  trap_wcr, reset_wcr, 0, 0,  get_wcr, set_wcr }
>  
>  #define PMU_SYS_REG(r)						\
> -	SYS_DESC(r), .reset = reset_unknown, .visibility = pmu_visibility
> +	SYS_DESC(r), .reset = reset_pmu_reg, .visibility = pmu_visibility
>  
>  /* Macro to expand the PMEVCNTRn_EL0 register */
>  #define PMU_PMEVCNTR_EL0(n)						\
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMEVCNTRn_EL0(n)),				\
> +	  .reset = reset_pmevcntr,					\
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reg = (PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + n), }
>  
>  /* Macro to expand the PMEVTYPERn_EL0 register */
>  #define PMU_PMEVTYPER_EL0(n)						\
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMEVTYPERn_EL0(n)),				\
> +	  .reset = reset_pmevtyper,					\
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evtyper, .reg = (PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + n), }
>  
>  static bool undef_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
> @@ -1595,13 +1635,13 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMSWINC_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmswinc, .reg = PMSWINC_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMSELR_EL0),
> -	  .access = access_pmselr, .reg = PMSELR_EL0 },
> +	  .access = access_pmselr, .reset = reset_pmselr, .reg = PMSELR_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCEID0_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmceid, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCEID1_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmceid, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCCNTR_EL0),
> -	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reg = PMCCNTR_EL0 },
> +	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reset = reset_unknown, .reg = PMCCNTR_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMXEVTYPER_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evtyper, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMXEVCNTR_EL0),

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: kernel-team@android.com, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Narrow PMU sysreg reset values to architectural requirements
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:48:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae510501-0410-47b1-77f3-cb83d3b1fa9e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210713135900.1473057-2-maz@kernel.org>

Hi Marc,

On 7/13/21 2:58 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> A number of the PMU sysregs expose reset values that are not in
> compliant with the architecture (set bits in the RES0 ranges,
> for example).
>
> This in turn has the effect that we need to pointlessly mask
> some register when using them.
>
> Let's start by making sure we don't have illegal values in the
> shadow registers at reset time. This affects all the registers
> that dedicate one bit per counter, the counters themselves,
> PMEVTYPERn_EL0 and PMSELR_EL0.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index f6f126eb6ac1..95ccb8f45409 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -603,6 +603,44 @@ static unsigned int pmu_visibility(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	return REG_HIDDEN;
>  }
>  
> +static void reset_pmu_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	u64 n, mask;
> +
> +	/* No PMU available, any PMU reg may UNDEF... */
> +	if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
> +		return;
> +
> +	n = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT;

Isn't this going to cause a lot of unnecessary traps with NV? Is that going to be
a problem? Because at the moment I can't think of an elegant way to avoid it,
other than special casing PMCR_EL0 in kvm_reset_sys_regs() and using here
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0). Or, even better, using
kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask(vcpu), since this is identical to what that function does.

> +	n &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
> +
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +
> +	mask = BIT(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);

PMSWINC_EL0 has bit 31 RES0. Other than that, looked at all the PMU registers and
everything looks correct to me.

Thanks,

Alex

> +	if (n)
> +		mask |= GENMASK(n - 1, 0);
> +
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= mask;
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmevcntr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= GENMASK(31, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmevtyper(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_MASK;
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmselr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= ARMV8_PMU_COUNTER_MASK;
> +}
> +
>  static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
>  {
>  	u64 pmcr, val;
> @@ -944,16 +982,18 @@ static bool access_pmuserenr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
>  	  trap_wcr, reset_wcr, 0, 0,  get_wcr, set_wcr }
>  
>  #define PMU_SYS_REG(r)						\
> -	SYS_DESC(r), .reset = reset_unknown, .visibility = pmu_visibility
> +	SYS_DESC(r), .reset = reset_pmu_reg, .visibility = pmu_visibility
>  
>  /* Macro to expand the PMEVCNTRn_EL0 register */
>  #define PMU_PMEVCNTR_EL0(n)						\
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMEVCNTRn_EL0(n)),				\
> +	  .reset = reset_pmevcntr,					\
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reg = (PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + n), }
>  
>  /* Macro to expand the PMEVTYPERn_EL0 register */
>  #define PMU_PMEVTYPER_EL0(n)						\
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMEVTYPERn_EL0(n)),				\
> +	  .reset = reset_pmevtyper,					\
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evtyper, .reg = (PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + n), }
>  
>  static bool undef_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
> @@ -1595,13 +1635,13 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMSWINC_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmswinc, .reg = PMSWINC_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMSELR_EL0),
> -	  .access = access_pmselr, .reg = PMSELR_EL0 },
> +	  .access = access_pmselr, .reset = reset_pmselr, .reg = PMSELR_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCEID0_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmceid, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCEID1_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmceid, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCCNTR_EL0),
> -	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reg = PMCCNTR_EL0 },
> +	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reset = reset_unknown, .reg = PMCCNTR_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMXEVTYPER_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evtyper, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMXEVCNTR_EL0),
_______________________________________________
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: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Narrow PMU sysreg reset values to architectural requirements
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:48:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae510501-0410-47b1-77f3-cb83d3b1fa9e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210713135900.1473057-2-maz@kernel.org>

Hi Marc,

On 7/13/21 2:58 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> A number of the PMU sysregs expose reset values that are not in
> compliant with the architecture (set bits in the RES0 ranges,
> for example).
>
> This in turn has the effect that we need to pointlessly mask
> some register when using them.
>
> Let's start by making sure we don't have illegal values in the
> shadow registers at reset time. This affects all the registers
> that dedicate one bit per counter, the counters themselves,
> PMEVTYPERn_EL0 and PMSELR_EL0.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index f6f126eb6ac1..95ccb8f45409 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -603,6 +603,44 @@ static unsigned int pmu_visibility(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	return REG_HIDDEN;
>  }
>  
> +static void reset_pmu_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	u64 n, mask;
> +
> +	/* No PMU available, any PMU reg may UNDEF... */
> +	if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
> +		return;
> +
> +	n = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT;

Isn't this going to cause a lot of unnecessary traps with NV? Is that going to be
a problem? Because at the moment I can't think of an elegant way to avoid it,
other than special casing PMCR_EL0 in kvm_reset_sys_regs() and using here
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0). Or, even better, using
kvm_pmu_valid_counter_mask(vcpu), since this is identical to what that function does.

> +	n &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
> +
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +
> +	mask = BIT(ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX);

PMSWINC_EL0 has bit 31 RES0. Other than that, looked at all the PMU registers and
everything looks correct to me.

Thanks,

Alex

> +	if (n)
> +		mask |= GENMASK(n - 1, 0);
> +
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= mask;
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmevcntr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= GENMASK(31, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmevtyper(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_MASK;
> +}
> +
> +static void reset_pmselr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	reset_unknown(vcpu, r);
> +	__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) &= ARMV8_PMU_COUNTER_MASK;
> +}
> +
>  static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
>  {
>  	u64 pmcr, val;
> @@ -944,16 +982,18 @@ static bool access_pmuserenr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
>  	  trap_wcr, reset_wcr, 0, 0,  get_wcr, set_wcr }
>  
>  #define PMU_SYS_REG(r)						\
> -	SYS_DESC(r), .reset = reset_unknown, .visibility = pmu_visibility
> +	SYS_DESC(r), .reset = reset_pmu_reg, .visibility = pmu_visibility
>  
>  /* Macro to expand the PMEVCNTRn_EL0 register */
>  #define PMU_PMEVCNTR_EL0(n)						\
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMEVCNTRn_EL0(n)),				\
> +	  .reset = reset_pmevcntr,					\
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reg = (PMEVCNTR0_EL0 + n), }
>  
>  /* Macro to expand the PMEVTYPERn_EL0 register */
>  #define PMU_PMEVTYPER_EL0(n)						\
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMEVTYPERn_EL0(n)),				\
> +	  .reset = reset_pmevtyper,					\
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evtyper, .reg = (PMEVTYPER0_EL0 + n), }
>  
>  static bool undef_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p,
> @@ -1595,13 +1635,13 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMSWINC_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmswinc, .reg = PMSWINC_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMSELR_EL0),
> -	  .access = access_pmselr, .reg = PMSELR_EL0 },
> +	  .access = access_pmselr, .reset = reset_pmselr, .reg = PMSELR_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCEID0_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmceid, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCEID1_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmceid, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCCNTR_EL0),
> -	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reg = PMCCNTR_EL0 },
> +	  .access = access_pmu_evcntr, .reset = reset_unknown, .reg = PMCCNTR_EL0 },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMXEVTYPER_EL0),
>  	  .access = access_pmu_evtyper, .reset = NULL },
>  	{ PMU_SYS_REG(SYS_PMXEVCNTR_EL0),

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-07-14 15:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-13 13:58 [PATCH 0/3] kvm-arm64: Fix PMU reset values (and more) Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Narrow PMU sysreg reset values to architectural requirements Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 14:39   ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-13 14:39     ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-13 14:39     ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-13 15:59     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 15:59       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 15:59       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 16:15       ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-13 16:15         ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-13 16:15         ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-14 15:48   ` Alexandru Elisei [this message]
2021-07-14 15:48     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-14 15:48     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-15 11:11     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 11:11       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 11:11       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 11:51       ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15 11:51         ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15 11:51         ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15 12:25         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 12:25           ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 12:25           ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Drop unnecessary masking of PMU registers Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:58   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-14 16:12   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-14 16:12     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-14 16:12     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-13 13:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm64: Disabling disabled PMU counters wastes a lot of time Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:59   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-13 13:59   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-14 16:18   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-14 16:18     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-14 16:18     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-07-15  8:34 ` [PATCH 0/3] kvm-arm64: Fix PMU reset values (and more) Alexandre Chartre
2021-07-15  8:34   ` Alexandre Chartre
2021-07-15  8:34   ` Alexandre Chartre

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=ae510501-0410-47b1-77f3-cb83d3b1fa9e@arm.com \
    --to=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
    --cc=alexandre.chartre@oracle.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.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.