From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/VPMU: Handle APIC_LVTPC accesses Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:28:00 -0500 Message-ID: <54CA5180.6090909@oracle.com> References: <1422474991-2001-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> <1422474991-2001-3-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> <54CA2D97020000780005ACA9@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YGr12-0004HY-Mw for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:28:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54CA2D97020000780005ACA9@mail.emea.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, kevin.tian@intel.com, dietmar.hahn@ts.fujitsu.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/29/2015 06:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 28.01.15 at 20:56, 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 >> Acked-by: Kevin Tian >> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Hahn >> Tested-by: Dietmar Hahn > > 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