diff for duplicates of <YWW7zGWUpqXLXE/4@google.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 483e313..1f52464 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -3,21 +3,21 @@ On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
 > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
 > > > On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 15:02 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
 > > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
-> > > > > +???????preempt_disable();
-> > > > > +???????loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);
-> > > > > +???????if (loaded)
-> > > > > +???????????????kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);
+> > > > > +       preempt_disable();
+> > > > > +       loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);
+> > > > > +       if (loaded)
+> > > > > +               kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);
 > > > > 
-> > > > Oof.? Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64.?
+> > > > Oof.  Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64. 
 > > > 
 > > > Yes. This part is similar to arm64 because the same race condition
 > > > can
 > > > happen in riscv due to save/restore of CSRs during reset.
 > > > 
 > > > 
-> > > > Is there really no better approach to handling this?? I don't see
-> > > > anything ?in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that will obviously break if the
-> > > > vCPU is ?loaded.? If the goal is purely to effect a CSR reset via
+> > > > Is there really no better approach to handling this?  I don't see
+> > > > anything  in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that will obviously break if the
+> > > > vCPU is  loaded.  If the goal is purely to effect a CSR reset via
 > > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_load(), then why not just factor out a helper to do
 > > > > exactly that?
 > > 
@@ -27,17 +27,17 @@ On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
 
 More or less.  I'm mostly asking why putting the vCPU is necessary.
 
-> > > > > ?void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
-> > > > > ?{
-> > > > > +???????/**
-> > > > > +??????? * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.
-> > > > > +??????? * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off
+> > > > >  void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+> > > > >  {
+> > > > > +       /**
+> > > > > +        * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.
+> > > > > +        * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off
 > > > > > state
 > > > > > so that they
-> > > > > +??????? * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.
-> > > > > +??????? */
-> > > > > +???????if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)
-> > > > > +???????????????kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
+> > > > > +        * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.
+> > > > > +        */
+> > > > > +       if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)
+> > > > > +               kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
 > > > > 
 > > > > Why do this in postcreate?
 > > > > 
@@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ More or less.  I'm mostly asking why putting the vCPU is necessary.
 > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_create returns.
 > > 
 > > But kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off() doesn't doesn't anything outside of the
-> > vCPU.? It clears vcpu->arch.power_off, makes a request, and kicks the
-> > vCPU.? None of that has side effects to anything else in KVM.? If the vCPU
+> > vCPU.  It clears vcpu->arch.power_off, makes a request, and kicks the
+> > vCPU.  None of that has side effects to anything else in KVM.  If the vCPU
 > > isn't created successfully, it gets deleted and nothing ever sees that
 > > state change.
 > 
@@ -61,3 +61,8 @@ More or less.  I'm mostly asking why putting the vCPU is necessary.
 > after vcpu_idx is assigned.
 
 Ah, it's the consumption of vcpu->vcpu_idx that's problematic.  Thanks!
+
+_______________________________________________
+linux-riscv mailing list
+linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
+http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index acdc2bd..3b7eeb2 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -5,9 +5,19 @@
  "ref\0YWRLBknWXjzPnF1w@google.com\0"
  "ref\0a762f0263090d7e818e58873d63139d7b6829d87.camel@wdc.com\0"
  "From\0Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>\0"
- "Subject\0[PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Add SBI HSM extension in KVM\0"
+ "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Add SBI HSM extension in KVM\0"
  "Date\0Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:46:04 +0000\0"
- "To\0kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org\0"
+ "To\0Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>\0"
+ "Cc\0kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org <kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>"
+  linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
+  vincent.chen@sifive.com <vincent.chen@sifive.com>
+  Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>
+  paul.walmsley@sifive.com <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
+  palmer@dabbelt.com <palmer@dabbelt.com>
+  wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
+  kvm@vger.kernel.org <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
+  pbonzini@redhat.com <pbonzini@redhat.com>
+ " linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:\n"
@@ -15,21 +25,21 @@
  "> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:\n"
  "> > > On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 15:02 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:\n"
  "> > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:\n"
- "> > > > > +???????preempt_disable();\n"
- "> > > > > +???????loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);\n"
- "> > > > > +???????if (loaded)\n"
- "> > > > > +???????????????kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240preempt_disable();\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240if (loaded)\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);\n"
  "> > > > \n"
- "> > > > Oof.? Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64.?\n"
+ "> > > > Oof.\302\240 Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64.\302\240\n"
  "> > > \n"
  "> > > Yes. This part is similar to arm64 because the same race condition\n"
  "> > > can\n"
  "> > > happen in riscv due to save/restore of CSRs during reset.\n"
  "> > > \n"
  "> > > \n"
- "> > > > Is there really no better approach to handling this?? I don't see\n"
- "> > > > anything ?in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that will obviously break if the\n"
- "> > > > vCPU is ?loaded.? If the goal is purely to effect a CSR reset via\n"
+ "> > > > Is there really no better approach to handling this?\302\240 I don't see\n"
+ "> > > > anything \302\240in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that will obviously break if the\n"
+ "> > > > vCPU is \302\240loaded.\302\240 If the goal is purely to effect a CSR reset via\n"
  "> > > > kvm_arch_vcpu_load(), then why not just factor out a helper to do\n"
  "> > > > exactly that?\n"
  "> > \n"
@@ -39,17 +49,17 @@
  "\n"
  "More or less.  I'm mostly asking why putting the vCPU is necessary.\n"
  "\n"
- "> > > > > ?void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)\n"
- "> > > > > ?{\n"
- "> > > > > +???????/**\n"
- "> > > > > +??????? * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.\n"
- "> > > > > +??????? * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off\n"
+ "> > > > > \302\240void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)\n"
+ "> > > > > \302\240{\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240/**\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240 * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240 * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off\n"
  "> > > > > state\n"
  "> > > > > so that they\n"
- "> > > > > +??????? * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.\n"
- "> > > > > +??????? */\n"
- "> > > > > +???????if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)\n"
- "> > > > > +???????????????kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240 * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240 */\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)\n"
+ "> > > > > +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);\n"
  "> > > > \n"
  "> > > > Why do this in postcreate?\n"
  "> > > > \n"
@@ -60,8 +70,8 @@
  "> > > kvm_arch_vcpu_create returns.\n"
  "> > \n"
  "> > But kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off() doesn't doesn't anything outside of the\n"
- "> > vCPU.? It clears vcpu->arch.power_off, makes a request, and kicks the\n"
- "> > vCPU.? None of that has side effects to anything else in KVM.? If the vCPU\n"
+ "> > vCPU.\302\240 It clears vcpu->arch.power_off, makes a request, and kicks the\n"
+ "> > vCPU.\302\240 None of that has side effects to anything else in KVM.\302\240 If the vCPU\n"
  "> > isn't created successfully, it gets deleted and nothing ever sees that\n"
  "> > state change.\n"
  "> \n"
@@ -72,6 +82,11 @@
  "> kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu. kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate() is the arch hookup\n"
  "> after vcpu_idx is assigned.\n"
  "\n"
- Ah, it's the consumption of vcpu->vcpu_idx that's problematic.  Thanks!
+ "Ah, it's the consumption of vcpu->vcpu_idx that's problematic.  Thanks!\n"
+ "\n"
+ "_______________________________________________\n"
+ "linux-riscv mailing list\n"
+ "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org\n"
+ http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
 
-d7332d83e81889bbd72d040f5862768db8dfc1494596ce714cb061dfa4143dab
+e85b374710ea97b57319abaa9fa378635930acc2e7be2a9939e9a6cd09c4cb47
