From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/7] KVM: x86: virtualize cpuid faulting References: <20161101013749.4003-1-khuey@kylehuey.com> <20161101013749.4003-8-khuey@kylehuey.com> <273805880.9973234.1478010366977.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4b51938b-aa81-6bc5-2d66-0ef8c17dafdf@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 23:51:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Kyle Huey , Robert O'Callahan , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , Alexander Viro , Shuah Khan , Dave Hansen , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Boris Ostrovsky , Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dmitry Safonov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: On 01/11/2016 19:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> >>> + vcpu->arch.cpuid_fault = false; >> >> This should be conditional on "if (!init_event)". Most MSRs are untouched >> on an INIT IPI. >> >> Otherwise looks good. The patch is independent of the rest, so I would >> prefer to take it through the KVM tree. >> > > It depends on the FEATURE_ENABLES MSR define, which is part of that series. Sure, I usually time my pull request anyway so that generic arch stuff goes in first (KVM comes after architectures in linux-next, too). If only the first 6 patches are included in tip, I can handle the seventh myself. Paolo