[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170419080254.c3j5lwztad2fswwr@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:02:54 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
wanpeng.li@...mail.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fengtiantian <fengtiantian@...wei.com>,
Xiexiuqi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] x86: call smp vmxoff in smp stop
* Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ingo, can you put this in tip?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>
> On 18/01/2017 12:32, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > From: Tiantian Feng <fengtiantian@...wei.com>
> >
> > We need to disable VMX on all CPUs before stop cpu when OS panic,
> > otherwisewe risk hanging up the machine, because the CPU ignore INIT
> > signals when VMX is enabled. In kernel mainline this issue existence.
Yes, but the changelog is atrcious:
- title should describe the purpose, not the implementation
- CPU is spelled 'CPU' once, then 'cpu' _in the same sentence_!
- typos
- spelling
- the last sentence doesn't even parse ...
Still it's already at V4 and comes with two signoffs and what amounts to a
maintainer Ack??
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists