From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:29:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200323152909.GE28711@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfnr9sqn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:10:40PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
>
> > +
> > + .runtime_ops = &svm_x86_ops,
> > +};
>
> Unrelated to your patch but I think we can make the naming of some of
> these functions more consistend on SVM/VMX, in particular I'd suggest
>
> has_svm() -> cpu_has_svm_support()
> is_disabled -> svm_disabled_by_bios()
> ...
> (see below for VMX)
>
> > +
> > static int __init svm_init(void)
> > {
> > - return kvm_init(&svm_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > + return kvm_init(&svm_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > __alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 07299a957d4a..ffcdcc86f5b7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -7842,11 +7842,8 @@ static bool vmx_check_apicv_inhibit_reasons(ulong bit)
> > }
> >
> > static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > - .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > - .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > - .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
> > .hardware_unsetup = hardware_unsetup,
> > - .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > +
> > .hardware_enable = hardware_enable,
> > .hardware_disable = hardware_disable,
> > .cpu_has_accelerated_tpr = report_flexpriority,
> > @@ -7981,6 +7978,15 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > .apic_init_signal_blocked = vmx_apic_init_signal_blocked,
> > };
> >
> > +static struct kvm_x86_init_ops vmx_init_ops __initdata = {
> > + .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > + .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > + .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > + .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
>
> cpu_has_kvm_support() -> cpu_has_vmx_support()
> hardware_setup() -> vmx_hardware_setup()
Preaching to the choir on this one. The VMX functions without prefixes in
in particular annoy me to no end, e.g. hardware_setup(). Though the worst
is probably ".vcpu_create = vmx_create_vcpu", if I had a nickel for every
time I've tried to find vmx_vcpu_create()...
What if we added a macro to auto-generate the common/required hooks? E.g.:
static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
MANDATORY_KVM_X86_OPS(vmx),
.pmu_ops = &intel_pmu_ops,
...
};
That'd enforce consistent naming, and would provide a bit of documentation
as to which hooks are optional, e.g. many of the nested hooks, and which
must be defined for KVM to function.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:29:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200323152909.GE28711@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfnr9sqn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:10:40PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
>
> > +
> > + .runtime_ops = &svm_x86_ops,
> > +};
>
> Unrelated to your patch but I think we can make the naming of some of
> these functions more consistend on SVM/VMX, in particular I'd suggest
>
> has_svm() -> cpu_has_svm_support()
> is_disabled -> svm_disabled_by_bios()
> ...
> (see below for VMX)
>
> > +
> > static int __init svm_init(void)
> > {
> > - return kvm_init(&svm_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > + return kvm_init(&svm_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > __alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 07299a957d4a..ffcdcc86f5b7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -7842,11 +7842,8 @@ static bool vmx_check_apicv_inhibit_reasons(ulong bit)
> > }
> >
> > static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > - .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > - .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > - .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
> > .hardware_unsetup = hardware_unsetup,
> > - .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > +
> > .hardware_enable = hardware_enable,
> > .hardware_disable = hardware_disable,
> > .cpu_has_accelerated_tpr = report_flexpriority,
> > @@ -7981,6 +7978,15 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > .apic_init_signal_blocked = vmx_apic_init_signal_blocked,
> > };
> >
> > +static struct kvm_x86_init_ops vmx_init_ops __initdata = {
> > + .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > + .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > + .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > + .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
>
> cpu_has_kvm_support() -> cpu_has_vmx_support()
> hardware_setup() -> vmx_hardware_setup()
Preaching to the choir on this one. The VMX functions without prefixes in
in particular annoy me to no end, e.g. hardware_setup(). Though the worst
is probably ".vcpu_create = vmx_create_vcpu", if I had a nickel for every
time I've tried to find vmx_vcpu_create()...
What if we added a macro to auto-generate the common/required hooks? E.g.:
static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
MANDATORY_KVM_X86_OPS(vmx),
.pmu_ops = &intel_pmu_ops,
...
};
That'd enforce consistent naming, and would provide a bit of documentation
as to which hooks are optional, e.g. many of the nested hooks, and which
must be defined for KVM to function.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:29:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200323152909.GE28711@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfnr9sqn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:10:40PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
>
> > +
> > + .runtime_ops = &svm_x86_ops,
> > +};
>
> Unrelated to your patch but I think we can make the naming of some of
> these functions more consistend on SVM/VMX, in particular I'd suggest
>
> has_svm() -> cpu_has_svm_support()
> is_disabled -> svm_disabled_by_bios()
> ...
> (see below for VMX)
>
> > +
> > static int __init svm_init(void)
> > {
> > - return kvm_init(&svm_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > + return kvm_init(&svm_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > __alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 07299a957d4a..ffcdcc86f5b7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -7842,11 +7842,8 @@ static bool vmx_check_apicv_inhibit_reasons(ulong bit)
> > }
> >
> > static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > - .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > - .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > - .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
> > .hardware_unsetup = hardware_unsetup,
> > - .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > +
> > .hardware_enable = hardware_enable,
> > .hardware_disable = hardware_disable,
> > .cpu_has_accelerated_tpr = report_flexpriority,
> > @@ -7981,6 +7978,15 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > .apic_init_signal_blocked = vmx_apic_init_signal_blocked,
> > };
> >
> > +static struct kvm_x86_init_ops vmx_init_ops __initdata = {
> > + .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > + .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > + .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > + .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
>
> cpu_has_kvm_support() -> cpu_has_vmx_support()
> hardware_setup() -> vmx_hardware_setup()
Preaching to the choir on this one. The VMX functions without prefixes in
in particular annoy me to no end, e.g. hardware_setup(). Though the worst
is probably ".vcpu_create = vmx_create_vcpu", if I had a nickel for every
time I've tried to find vmx_vcpu_create()...
What if we added a macro to auto-generate the common/required hooks? E.g.:
static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
MANDATORY_KVM_X86_OPS(vmx),
.pmu_ops = &intel_pmu_ops,
...
};
That'd enforce consistent naming, and would provide a bit of documentation
as to which hooks are optional, e.g. many of the nested hooks, and which
must be defined for KVM to function.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:29:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200323152909.GE28711@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfnr9sqn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:10:40PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:
>
> > +
> > + .runtime_ops = &svm_x86_ops,
> > +};
>
> Unrelated to your patch but I think we can make the naming of some of
> these functions more consistend on SVM/VMX, in particular I'd suggest
>
> has_svm() -> cpu_has_svm_support()
> is_disabled -> svm_disabled_by_bios()
> ...
> (see below for VMX)
>
> > +
> > static int __init svm_init(void)
> > {
> > - return kvm_init(&svm_x86_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > + return kvm_init(&svm_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> > __alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 07299a957d4a..ffcdcc86f5b7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -7842,11 +7842,8 @@ static bool vmx_check_apicv_inhibit_reasons(ulong bit)
> > }
> >
> > static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > - .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > - .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > - .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
> > .hardware_unsetup = hardware_unsetup,
> > - .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > +
> > .hardware_enable = hardware_enable,
> > .hardware_disable = hardware_disable,
> > .cpu_has_accelerated_tpr = report_flexpriority,
> > @@ -7981,6 +7978,15 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
> > .apic_init_signal_blocked = vmx_apic_init_signal_blocked,
> > };
> >
> > +static struct kvm_x86_init_ops vmx_init_ops __initdata = {
> > + .cpu_has_kvm_support = cpu_has_kvm_support,
> > + .disabled_by_bios = vmx_disabled_by_bios,
> > + .check_processor_compatibility = vmx_check_processor_compat,
> > + .hardware_setup = hardware_setup,
>
> cpu_has_kvm_support() -> cpu_has_vmx_support()
> hardware_setup() -> vmx_hardware_setup()
Preaching to the choir on this one. The VMX functions without prefixes in
in particular annoy me to no end, e.g. hardware_setup(). Though the worst
is probably ".vcpu_create = vmx_create_vcpu", if I had a nickel for every
time I've tried to find vmx_vcpu_create()...
What if we added a macro to auto-generate the common/required hooks? E.g.:
static struct kvm_x86_ops vmx_x86_ops __ro_after_init = {
MANDATORY_KVM_X86_OPS(vmx),
.pmu_ops = &intel_pmu_ops,
...
};
That'd enforce consistent naming, and would provide a bit of documentation
as to which hooks are optional, e.g. many of the nested hooks, and which
must be defined for KVM to function.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-23 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-21 20:25 [PATCH v3 0/9] KVM: Move x86 init ops to separate struct Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] KVM: Pass kvm_init()'s opaque param to additional arch funcs Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-24 1:18 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-03-24 1:18 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-03-24 1:18 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-03-24 1:18 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate struct Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:10 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:10 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:10 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:10 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 15:29 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2020-03-23 15:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 15:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 15:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:24 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:24 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:24 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:24 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 19:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-23 19:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-23 19:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-23 19:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] KVM: VMX: Move hardware_setup() definition below vmx_x86_ops Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:12 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:12 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:12 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:12 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] KVM: VMX: Configure runtime hooks using vmx_x86_ops Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 16:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 20:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-23 20:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-23 20:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-23 20:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-03-21 20:25 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: x86: Set kvm_x86_ops only after ->hardware_setup() completes Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] KVM: x86: Copy kvm_x86_ops by value to eliminate layer of indirection Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:44 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:44 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:44 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:44 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: x86: Drop __exit from kvm_x86_ops' hardware_unsetup() Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:46 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:46 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:46 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:46 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] KVM: VMX: Annotate vmx_x86_ops as __initdata Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-21 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] KVM: SVM: Annotate svm_x86_ops " Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-21 20:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-03-23 12:48 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200323152909.GE28711@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.