linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] KVM: PPC: Add support for multiple-TCE hcalls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:40:18 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] KVM: PPC: Add support for multiple-TCE hcalls

On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 13:15 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> There are 2 ways of dealing with this:
> 
>   1) Call the ENABLE_CAP on every vcpu. That way one CPU may handle
> this hypercall in the kernel while another one may not. The same as we
> handle PAPR today.
> 
>   2) Create a new ENABLE_CAP for the vm.
> 
> I think in this case option 1 is fine - it's how we handle everything
> else already.

So, you are now asking him to chose between a gross horror or adding a
new piece of infrastructure for something that is entirely pointless to
begin with ?

Come on, give him a break. That stuff is fine as it is.

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/