[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] X86: Intel MPX definiation
From: |
H. Peter Anvin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] X86: Intel MPX definiation |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:59:49 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 |
On 12/05/2013 08:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/12/2013 17:43, Liu, Jinsong ha scritto:
>> From fbfa537f690eca139a96c6b2636ab5130bf57716 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Liu Jinsong <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:27:00 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] X86: Intel MPX definiation
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xudong Hao <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Jinsong <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 2 ++
>> arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h | 5 ++++-
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>
> hpa/Ingo/Thomas, can you give your Acked-by for this patch?
>
> I'm not sure of the consequences of changing XCNTXT_MASK. This series
> (which was submitted with the wrong threading) wants it so that KVM can
> use fpu_save_init and fpu_restore_checking to save and restore the MPX
> state of the guest.
>
Hi, I'm currently reviewing internally another set of patches for MPX
support which would at least in part conflict with these. I don't see
the rest of the series -- where was it posted?
Either way:
1. asm/cpufeatures.h patches should always be separate, as we put those
into a special branch into the -tip tree since they touch so many other
things.
2. Enabling MPX is only safe with XSTATE_EAGER, which Qiaowei's patchset
has done correctly.
-hpa