From: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 19:24:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221215112436.2iqizpso5loeficn@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y5pn2fYf5eHu8yCb@google.com>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:18:33AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >
> > BTW, we may need another patch to remove the obsolete comments in
> > nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs():
>
> Ouch, indeed. Want to send a proper patch? Or provide your SoB and I'll write
> a changelog?
>
> The comment was added by commit 80154d77c922 ("KVM: VMX: cache secondary exec controls"),
> but arguably the below is the appropriate Fixes, as it's the commit that fixed the
> existing cases where KVM didn't enumerate supported-but-conditional controls.
>
> Fixes: 6defc591846d ("KVM: nVMX: include conditional controls in /dev/kvm KVM_GET_MSRS")
>
Thanks a lot, Sean, especially for sharing the commit history.
And I just sent out a patch to fix it.
One question is about the process of small cleanup patches like
this: would it be better off to include the cleanup patches as
part of a larger submission, or is it OK to be sent seperately?
Previously I submitted some small patches(e.g. [1] & [2]) but
have not received any reply. So I am just wondering, maybe those
patches are too trivial and sometimes time-wasting for the reviewers?
Any suggestion? Thanks!
B.R.
Yu
[1]: [PATCH] KVM: MMU: Add wrapper to check whether MMU is in direct mode
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg297583.html
[2]: [PATCH v2 0/2] Cleanup VMFUNC handling in KVM.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4582139.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-15 11:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-13 6:23 [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs Sean Christopherson
2022-12-13 6:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: nVMX: Properly expose ENABLE_USR_WAIT_PAUSE control to L1 Sean Christopherson
2022-12-13 10:26 ` Yu Zhang
2022-12-13 18:08 ` Jim Mattson
2022-12-13 6:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: nVMX: Don't stuff secondary execution control if it's not supported Sean Christopherson
2022-12-13 6:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: nVMX: Don't muck with allowed sec exec controls on CPUID changes Sean Christopherson
2022-12-23 17:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-01-04 14:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-04 14:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-12-13 6:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: selftests: Test KVM's handling of VMX's sec exec MSR on KVM_SET_CPUID Sean Christopherson
2022-12-14 3:00 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs Yu Zhang
2022-12-15 0:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-12-15 11:24 ` Yu Zhang [this message]
2022-12-15 18:33 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-12-16 9:59 ` Yu Zhang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221215112436.2iqizpso5loeficn@linux.intel.com \
--to=yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aaronlewis@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox