[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200325161405.GG14294@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:14:06 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 25 (arch/x86/kvm/)
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:08:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/03/20 16:57, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> Randy, can you test it with your compiler?
> > Nope, no help. That's the wrong location.
> > Need a patch for this:
> >>> 24 (only showing one of them here) BUILD_BUG() errors in arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> >>> function __cpuid_entry_get_reg(), for the default: case.
>
> Doh, right. I think the only solution for that one is to degrade it to
> WARN_ON(1).
I reproduced the error, give me a bit to play with the code to see if the
BUILD_BUG can be preserved. I'm curious as to why kvm_cpu_cap_mask() is
special, and why it only fails with this config.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists