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=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,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 034BCC433ED for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:30 +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 9FAF0611AC for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9FAF0611AC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.111002.212143 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lWykR-0003GE-Ni; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:19 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 111002.212143; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lWykR-0003G7-KF; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:19 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 111002; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:18 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lWykP-0003G0-U0 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:17 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id b2342e67-f05a-4888-bc1b-5b9ee5cdf3bf; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EE0AC6E; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 09:57:16 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: b2342e67-f05a-4888-bc1b-5b9ee5cdf3bf X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1618480636; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1gi6LpB2ay90wHL0MaNprbc+A0YjlFknSp+NBnOGvwc=; b=Vw1Kvl7UytkqrctMlpfr3B+3kVy3w3Q8dMAObpByBujol6sMgMfDYOEfIwgEz+d5SYJhTG P5oYxEPGMS4fmkxLw6642LDYgXWR9Dxk5p3PC5rucFIBdvuJ/bEAo1xhaAQBrtnk6SEW0y 7SY+DiOX+tLpzDcFLgLbzwlc+m+bLP0= Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/viridian: EOI MSR should always happen in affected vCPU context To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Wei Liu , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Roger Pau Monne , paul@xen.org References: <20210401102252.95196-1-roger.pau@citrix.com> <5b4ec824-8cfa-8795-3a96-fb18527d3c18@xen.org> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <910fcf36-a0c6-9f1e-a402-9afa6a5c4a1f@suse.com> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:57:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5b4ec824-8cfa-8795-3a96-fb18527d3c18@xen.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 01.04.2021 12:50, Paul Durrant wrote: > On 01/04/2021 11:22, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >> The HV_X64_MSR_EOI wrmsr should always happen with the target vCPU >> as current, as there's no support for EOI'ing interrupts on a remote >> vCPU. >> >> While there also turn the unconditional assert at the top of the >> function into an error on non-debug builds. >> >> No functional change intended. >> >> Requested-by: Jan Beulich >> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné > > Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant Andrew, can you please clarify whether your concern was addressed and this can go in as-is, or (if not) reply to what Roger and I have said in response? Thanks, Jan