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=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 414D5C43331 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:40:40 +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 1377E2082D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:40:39 +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="GWsNgYai" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1377E2082D 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 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jHoHh-0008RY-Vz; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:40:25 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jHoHh-0008RT-Bx for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:40:25 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 20b60b44-7028-11ea-896b-12813bfff9fa Received: from esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.153]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 20b60b44-7028-11ea-896b-12813bfff9fa; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:40:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1585312825; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ap9l05eIddfaeUbwQRUseDl+grByTGbSBvy7E741Jus=; b=GWsNgYaiX0Wu4ZxuqyI9Jzx7hiNEB75j+4ZVfPEU5bo+Rhqu75wDs+jv s/Jd2NCtxtNOpYja+Kgvi9HGZpUlMCVBfj2zE1j53X+Bcy2nqGdovZAf5 l/gXoRodeHXY+2bXJo5xooRDjSSW1XxevrR/kx9PS3RLOKko/JeMAVAgY k=; Authentication-Results: esa2.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 (esa2.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=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="andrew.cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa2.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=esa2.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 (esa2.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=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: XzIH1dJEQTARwCZUVJBFsG0MmaGCmpz92qILVR3/JeKLQoaFDdE0X+wr/eDVIPSzLNHvGGrGPQ 2px5yXDUwjjFvWWcZGAlMsROWmTr/kUGRy9E//c8POfLJuvns+Zhd2xWf9RJ5Eig+jZgVJ4GNF YDTWuI2HxT0l9P6iTvabF09Ju49+R9vSL7iPunoTd7XD0mU1UeCbWg927w3SB3jKp510cb+y6t 4jZaB2qUNIlVmxP6ZX6wLb4Md7dlFKWwKvTBXuhC+Rc8zAnosA2M79QWqEMF6qO81bk1RdvWKo uTg= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 14761826 X-Ironport-Server: esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,312,1580792400"; d="scan'208";a="14761826" To: Jan Beulich References: <20200323101724.15655-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <20200323101724.15655-8-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <3e157f6d-e237-68d2-f628-10f4d42e578b@citrix.com> <154fef1b-5c73-4716-e649-4ea99cba3c72@citrix.com> <5aef05a2-5d37-c9a9-8cc7-157c52524faa@suse.com> From: Andrew Cooper Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:40:19 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5aef05a2-5d37-c9a9-8cc7-157c52524faa@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS01.citrite.net (10.69.22.112) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/7] x86/ucode/intel: Fold structures together X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Xen-devel , Wei Liu , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 26/03/2020 15:05, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.03.2020 15:50, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On a perhaps tangential note, what (if anything) are you plans regarding >> backport here? >> >> These defines are ok for a transitional period across a series (and >> probably means I'll need to get the AMD side ready to be committed at >> the same time), but I don't think we'd want them in the code for the >> longterm. >> >> I personally wasn't overly concerned about backports, but if you are, we >> should probably take this into consideration for the fixes. > Till now I didn't see a strong reason why backporting might be > needed (or even just wanted). The gratuitous memory allocation fixes would be the most compelling (and even then, not massively so), but they're sufficiently interlaced with the rest of the cleanup that I wasn't expecting backports to be a pleasant idea. ~Andrew