linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpuid: expose AVX512_4VNNIW and AVX512

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <19ce3689-8a73-9692-e48b-95a2cbdc8dc9@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:58:50 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 04/11/2016 16:57, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.

That's fine by me of course.  I would probably take both patches anyway.

Paolo