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