From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VMX: Eliminate cr3 store/load vmexit when
 UG enabled
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:52:08 +0000
Message-ID: <526E6C08.9020704@citrix.com>
References: <1382513945-9479-1-git-send-email-yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
	<5267DFE7.5000802@citrix.com>
	<A9667DDFB95DB7438FA9D7D576C3D87E0A94D605@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<526E732E02000078000FD475@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <526E732E02000078000FD475@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Yang Z Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 28/10/13 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.10.13 at 06:41, "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Cooper wrote on 2013-10-23:
>>> On 23/10/13 08:39, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>>> From: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@Intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> With the feature of unrestricted guest, there should no vmexit be
>>>> triggered when guest accesses the cr3 in non-paging mode.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@Intel.com>
>>> You English here confused me for a bit.  I presume you mean "Xen
>>> should not cause vmexits for cr3 accesses in unrestricted guests",
>>> whereas the current meaning implies that hardware wont generate a
>>> vmexit for cr3 accesses for unrestricted guests (which is not correct 
>> according to the SDM).
>> Apology for my poor English. Yes, your understanding is right.
> So assuming we'll get an ack from one of the VMX maintainers,
> should this then be committed with the suggested change to the
> description? Also, Andrew, any more concerns regarding this
> change (IOW did Yang address your earlier questions)?
>
> Jan
>

I think so, but I really don't think I know the implications of the
changes well enough to be happy giving it a Reviewed-by tag.

Given the clarification regarding the commit message, I shall defer to
the maintainers for the correctness of the change.

~Andrew