[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2c19c75-d66e-682c-f545-3276c6dc995e@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:44:24 -0500
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Part2 PATCH v4 02/29] x86/CPU/AMD: Add the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization CPU feature
On 09/29/2017 07:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
...
>
> This one was in the Part1 set, right? It landed here for whatever
> reason...
>
Part1 is based on tip/master and Part2 is based on kvm/master.
With the current division, we should be able to compile and run part1
and part2 independently. This patch defines X86_FEATURE_SEV which is
currently been used by svm.c hence I kept the patch in Part2.
If we move it in Part1 then Part2 build will fail -- I am okay with
including it as a pre-cursor to Part2 series. Is this something acceptable?
-Brijesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists