[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191015015327.GA8343@local-michael-cet-test.sh.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:53:27 +0800
From: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
yu.c.zhang@...el.com, alazar@...defender.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] vmx: spp: Add control flags for Sub-Page
Protection(SPP)
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 02:02:22PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 01:48:34PM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:52 AM Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -7521,6 +7527,10 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> > > if (!cpu_has_vmx_flexpriority())
> > > flexpriority_enabled = 0;
> > >
> > > + if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_spp() && enable_ept &&
> > > + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPP))
> > > + spp_supported = 1;
> >
> > Don't cpu_has_vmx_ept_spp() and boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPP) test
> > exactly the same thing?
>
> More or less. I'm about to hit 'send' on a series to eliminate the
> synthetic VMX features flags. If that goes through, the X86_FEATURE_SPP
> flag can also go away.
Thank you, these two are synonyms. I'll remove one next time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists