Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/VPMU: Handle APIC_LVTPC accesses

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 01/29/2015 06:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 28.01.15 at 20:56, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Don't have the hypervisor update APIC_LVTPC when _it_ thinks the vector
>> should be updated. Instead, handle guest's APIC_LVTPC accesses and write
>> what
>> the guest explicitly wanted (but only when VPMU is enabled).
>>
>> This is updated version of commit 8097616fbdda that was reverted by
>> cc3404093c85. Unlike the previous version, we don't update APIC_LVTPC
>> when VPMU is disabled to avoid interfering with NMI watchdog (which
>> runs only when VPMU is off).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>> Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@ts.fujitsu.com>
>> Tested-by: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@ts.fujitsu.com>
>
> Even leaving aside the functionality change, on an updated patch
> the previous version of which needed to be reverted, retaining
> _any_ such tags is wrong from my pov. I asked you before to be
> more conservative with retaining tags, and I'm now going to reserve
> the right to no longer point out such issues, but silently drop such
> patches coming from you.


I dropped your tag from this patch.

I kept Kevin's since he ACKed Intel changes and they are the same in 
this version.

Dietmar's tag was left here since he tested this patch without watchdog 
anyway and the 2-line addition here would not change anything.

However, if you insist on dropping all tags even for minor changes like 
that (and "determining what "minor" is is a judgment call) I will 
certainly do that in the future.


-boris