From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sarah Newman <srn@prgmr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Control CR0 TS behavior using
	dev_na_ts_allowed
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:48:45 -0700
Message-ID: <532886FD.6000100@prgmr.com>
References: <53266841.6090308@prgmr.com>	<1395027059-26248-1-git-send-email-srn@prgmr.com>	<5326C2820200007800124905@nat28.tlf.novell.com>	<CAFLBxZYWDbHr3sUg4MzOaT63ueQ=ZKtbXUQUt32gizMfzaM2UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5327082D0200007800124BD0@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>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <srn@prgmr.com>) id 1WPy89-0007vE-Sz
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:48:49 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5327082D0200007800124BD0@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>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, Yanhai Zhu <zhu.yanhai@gmail.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 03/17/2014 06:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.03.14 at 13:44, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> The naming of this (here and elsewhere) is rather odd: I assume
>>> you mean "dev_na" to be an abbreviation of "device not available",
>>> but I'd much prefer the CPU exception abbreviation (#NM) to be
>>> used in such a case. However, in the case here this still wouldn't
>>> be a precise description of the behavior you establish: TS being
>>> set isn't allowed, but required to be set upon guest #NM. I'd
>>> therefore suggest naming this along the lines of "nm_enforce_ts".
>>
>> nm_hardware_ts, perhaps, since the TS is mimicking the native hardware
>> interface?
> 
> Would be fine with me too.

OK, I'll make a name change from dev_na_ts_allowed to nm_hardware_ts.