From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756019AbcETQyu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 20 May 2016 12:54:50 -0400
Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:47003 "EHLO mga02.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751467AbcETQys (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 20 May 2016 12:54:48 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,340,1459839600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="971259281"
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:50:08 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/fpu/state: Fix XSAVES issues - Part 1
Message-ID: <20160520165008.GA13088@test-lenovo>
References: <cover.1463070031.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <20160520071200.GC4003@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160520071200.GC4003@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:12:00AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>  patching file arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/xstate.h
>  patching file arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
>  patching file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/init.c
>  patching file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
>  patching file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
>  Hunk #4 FAILED at 552.
>  1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
> 
> which suggests that this series isn't against a recent x86 tree, right?

There are differences in tip/master and tip/x86/core.  The main thing is
using boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES) or cpu_has_xsaves.  My understanding
is boot_cpu_has() is where we are going and basing on tip/master is easier for
merging?

Thanks,
Yu-cheng