From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751788AbcBYVJx (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:09:53 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:53744 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751236AbcBYVJw (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:09:52 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,498,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="921266371" Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:07:15 -0800 From: Yu-cheng Yu To: Dave Hansen Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Sai Praneeth Prakhya , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Fenghua Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] x86/xsaves: Fix XSAVES known issues Message-ID: <20160225210715.GA8948@test-lenovo> References: <56CF6AB8.1050803@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56CF6AB8.1050803@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:57:28PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 02/25/2016 12:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > Patch 9 re-enables XSAVES. > > Could we also add one more thing to this: A big, fat warning that > supervisor states are not supported? We might get that from an eventual > use of xfeature_uncompacted_offset(), but we need something that's very > clear. > > I just don't want somebody coming along and shoving a supervisor state > in to XCR0 and expecting it to work just because we have XSAVES support > itself. That might happen in-tree or out-of-tree as things get prototyped. I will do that. Yu-cheng