[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161104155752.e6gf7hev3tklbw6m@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:57:52 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: He Chen <he.chen@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>,
Piotr Luc <Piotr.Luc@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpuid: expose AVX512_4VNNIW and AVX512_4FMAPS
features to kvm guest
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:13:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I mean that the changes to scattered.c are small, so it makes no sense
> to split them. With an Acked-by I could simply take the patch into my
> tree.
On no, it is not about the size or which tree it goes thru - rather that
having stuff separated conceptually makes the patches much more clear.
The patch order would be
* modify scattered.c to return leaf
* add user of new function
which also makes review almost trivial.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists