From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A57AC4332F for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 11:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229877AbiLOLYo (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:24:44 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42134 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229661AbiLOLYm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2022 06:24:42 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D5D325C40; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 03:24:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1671103481; x=1702639481; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=sk05TJBYxeFVoRCCPj2x5WWLJ5Jlr2hqAJRQ0ac1xeE=; b=ZNsuF1tUdHRJ/IabaJ7HJI27N7N/JwPUxP8Bcmp8bJnHjBLGatm/puSk CEEVV5OldkU1GFAk/qCHFmlPqttqfJzWyDt8nT1g8BWAH3gD4sahGieGr cyC3hiE+TKB284S2tYPXjlrrVWWsg+XKulp36vCnP+Sys2ovE6ZRJmkin tZd6RLsUFgiqKoJOsj7tjZGnuk/R+K2wQdGtbOzMRL5mgsQGjKyHJ3FgV GQSyLFTKlCdlIZkN81AD9YT1ntvns5XLKLMky++sFEANvlbcGgRfkZvYS p18pXiYBuwoxspbxEIKuiReMm6FG9cRNlXSWULNYvqgCjdKogM62GvNl9 A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10561"; a="317364870" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,247,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="317364870" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2022 03:24:41 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10561"; a="756302337" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,247,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="756302337" Received: from nye-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.255.28.30]) by fmsmga002-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2022 03:24:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 19:24:36 +0800 From: Yu Zhang To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Lewis Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs Message-ID: <20221215112436.2iqizpso5loeficn@linux.intel.com> References: <20221213062306.667649-1-seanjc@google.com> <20221214030037.4qz6v6fvfx6of32n@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org 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