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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373B6C83000 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056502074A for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="cMe6R79w" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 056502074A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jTni7-0007D2-To; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:29:15 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jTni6-0007Cx-RH for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:29:14 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: cc58919e-8a25-11ea-ae69-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.155]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id cc58919e-8a25-11ea-ae69-bc764e2007e4; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:29:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1588170555; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QsJPr9iVs6pqzFsZwMChw0wq8FGtmGYc2t1CUvxjZ0E=; b=cMe6R79w66lO15WHnAprk5W+aTmC9VVh7xQD+tStKZ+mfY3Hd8FABYix XVxa28202UKig7TIx1bz0wuPP4Sjk4D3nEWw7rgO+BLFmTTm38B3GMVY9 fji/nyZ3iXbEiN24yuur2zgdKc3N26APIMS6TeHZTpDLCj9Y99LQACL34 8=; Authentication-Results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of andrew.cooper3@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="andrew.cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: Q47QSwH1T/DS5B0ActYX3BQu40sA6UWVichvIGhQv22eweOT6gBHgkeeVuEHtztef6rU5hyLwr ukCJgeKovpRasPAdwNpp0KxLNPCWw0B0+rSd7Gv6/KHnjzEp5+yzTztf3UeMIMX3tWbOC8b2Mr aGwN16dG4NN67xCUDIRIhZGXWckExnmPeNswvEYip1z2VTdnozmTflJvRxykGV/Auo/sfW6RMt jAN6hsdT8SobS3pNBtqsV9vhEE6t7jK42X/hsnOCNJsCFVKpFVcyOCVZqDSP17RePYpPTcw8Ir gVk= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 16430618 X-Ironport-Server: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,332,1583211600"; d="scan'208";a="16430618" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/CPUID: correct error indicator for max extended leaf To: Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" References: From: Andrew Cooper Message-ID: <56366abc-78cc-64f7-f122-bdeac9a8ee3c@citrix.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:29:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Wei Liu , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 29/04/2020 15:11, Jan Beulich wrote: > With the max base leaf using 0, this one should be using the extended > leaf counterpart thereof, rather than some arbitrary extended leaf. > > Fixes: 588a966a572e ("libx86: Introduce x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible()") > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper