Messages in this thread |  | | From | Kechen Lu <> | Subject | RE: [RFC PATCH v6 1/6] KVM: x86: only allow exits disable before vCPUs created | Date | Sun, 22 Jan 2023 01:48:35 +0000 |
| |
Hi Greg,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:28 PM > To: Kechen Lu <kechenl@nvidia.com> > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; seanjc@google.com; pbonzini@redhat.com; > zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com; chao.gao@intel.com; shaoqin.huang@intel.com; > vkuznets@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > stable@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/6] KVM: x86: only allow exits disable before > vCPUs created > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:07:33AM +0000, Kechen Lu wrote: > > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> > > > > Since VMX and SVM both would never update the control bits if exits > > are disable after vCPUs are created, only allow setting exits disable > > flag before vCPU creation. > > > > Fixes: 4d5422cea3b6 ("KVM: X86: Provide a capability to disable MWAIT > > intercepts") > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> > > Nit, no blank line between fixes and signed-off-by please.
Ack.
> > And an RFC on v6? An RFC usually means "I don't think this is correct so do > not take it". How can you do that for 6 versions? And know that no one will > take an RFC series for that reason (or at least I will > not...)
Thanks for correcting this, this is my bad. The v2 to v4 revisions, there are big changes on the following patches after this prerequisite patch, so I still "RFC" for the design. But I should drop the "RFC" starting from v5, there are already consensus on the v5 design options
Best Regards, Kechen
> > thanks, > > greg k-h
|  |