[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <147cc043-b0af-74e9-5259-8c7854f82d8b@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:58:44 -0500
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Maran Wilson <maran.wilson@...cle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com, bp@...e.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, davem@...emloft.net,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hpa@...or.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
mchehab@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, thomas.lendacky@....com, hch@...radead.org,
roger.pau@...rix.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] KVM: x86: Allow Qemu/KVM to use PVH entry point
On 12/6/18 4:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:21:12PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Thanks! I should be able to post a Tested-by next Monday. Boris, are
>> you going to pick it up for 4.21?
> Boris me or Boris O.?
>
> :-)
>
O. ;-)
There are some minor changes in non-xen x86 code so it would be good to
get x86 maintainers' ack.
And as far as qemu/qboot changes, should we assume that the general
approach is acceptable? I understand that the patches will probably need
to go through some iterations but I want to make sure we have a path
forward there.
-boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists