From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: APIC_ID in apic_reg_write()
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:50:35 -0400
Message-ID: <jpg383himqs.fsf@redhat.com>
References: <jpgfv7iubjp.fsf@redhat.com> <55412433.7080805@siemens.com>
	<jpgiocen4sl.fsf@redhat.com> <55412C05.4090705@siemens.com>
	<jpgy4la379d.fsf@redhat.com> <5541C044.1080408@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41667 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751990AbbD3Quh (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:50:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5541C044.1080408@siemens.com> (Jan Kiszka's message of "Thu, 30
	Apr 2015 07:40:20 +0200")
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> writes:
...
>
>> 
>> Setting r/w permissions on a per-model is little overkill, don't you think ?
>
> If we want accurate behaviour, we should do this. If not, we probably
> better leave the code alone to avoid surprises for preexisting
> host/guest setups. Modern OSes do not care anyway, but special ones may
> get unhappy.

Agreed, better to leave it alone.

> Jan