From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/29] xen/x86: allow disabling the
	emulated local apic
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:00:00 +0200
Message-ID: <56050D10.4070803@citrix.com>
References: <1441368548-43465-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1441368548-43465-13-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<55F95AFA02000078000A33A5@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<5602C908.2090705@citrix.com>
	<5603C90A02000078000A51DF@prv-mh.provo.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.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=703afe70e=roger.pau@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZfOrO-0005Aq-7Y
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:00:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5603C90A02000078000A51DF@prv-mh.provo.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: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, SuraveeSuthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, AndrewCooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 24/09/15 a les 9.57, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>> On 23.09.15 at 17:45, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> El 16/09/15 a les 12.05, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>>>> On 04.09.15 at 14:08, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Also - aren't all the changes to this file (and perhaps othersfurther
>>> down) bug fixes in their own right?
>>
>> Whether they should be considered bugs or not it's hard to tell. There
>> was no code that executed this paths before with this configuration, and
>> probably nobody considered running HVM guests without an emulated lapic
>> a possibility, so I would argue that they are merely omissions.
> 
> Whether these were active or latent bugs doesn't really matter.
> What I'd prefer is for the code adjustments not directly related to
> the feature suppression you work on to be in their own patch, so
> that the two steps taken can be viewed as two steps. Particularly
> if it later turns out that one or more of those apparent latent bugs
> are found to be actively harming some special case, backporting
> that adjustment without the feature suppression parts would
> become a straightforward option.

Ack, I'm going to split some of the changes in this patch to a pre-patch.

Roger.