From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aravind Gopalakrishnan Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/AMD: Apply workaround for AMD F16h Erratum792 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:11:34 -0600 Message-ID: <52F3DE66.7010800@amd.com> References: <1391636619-1703-1-git-send-email-Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <52F370EC0200007800119B43@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52F370EC0200007800119B43@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, keir@xen.org, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2/6/2014 4:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 05.02.14 at 22:43, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: >> + >> rdmsrl(MSR_AMD64_LS_CFG, value); >> if (!(value & (1 << 15))) { >> static bool_t warned; > The patch context even shows what is missing: A diagnostic > message making it possible to know that the workaround was > applied. Of course you don't need two separate messages for > the two parts of the workaround, but indicating in the message > which of them was applied would seem desirable. > > Furthermore, I don't see why you would need a new local > variable here at all - there are two suitable variables available > throughout the entire function (l and h). > > Okay, corrected the patch as per your comments. Sending it out as V3. -Aravind