[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:41:36 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
hpa@...or.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of
split lock detection
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 01:05:09PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> To solve these issues, introducing a new sld_state, "sld_not_exist", as
> the default value. It will be switched to other value if CORE_CAPABILITIES
> or FMS enumerate split lock detection.
Is a better name for this state "sld_uninitialized?
Otherwise looks good.
Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists