[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200415025105.GE12547@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:51:05 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Jon Cargille <jcargill@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Northup <digitaleric@...il.com>,
Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] KVM: pass through CPUID(0x80000006)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 07:37:26PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 06:23:20PM -0700, Jon Cargille wrote:
> > From: Eric Northup <digitaleric@...il.com>
> >
> > Return L2 cache and TLB information to guests.
> > They could have been set before, but the defaults that KVM returns will be
> > necessary for usermode that doesn't supply their own CPUID tables.
>
> I don't follow the changelog. The code makes sense, but I don't understand
> the justification. This only affects KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, i.e. what's
> advertised to userspace, it doesn't directly change CPUID emulation in any
> way. The "They could have been set before" blurb is especially confusing.
>
> I assume you want to say something like:
>
> Return the host's L2 cache and TLB information for CPUID.0x80000006
> instead of zeroing out the entry as part of KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID.
> This allows a userspace VMM to feed KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID's output
> directly into KVM_SET_CPUID2 (without breaking the guest).
>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Northup <digitaleric@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Cargille <jcargill@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
>
> Jim's tag is unnecessary, unless he was a middleman between Eric and Jon,
> in which case Jim's tag should also come between Eric's and Jon's.
>
> Only one of Eric's signoffs is needed (the one that matches the From: tag,
> i.e. is the official author). I'm guessing Google would prefer the author
> to be the @google.com address.
Ah, Eric's @google.com mail bounced. Maybe do:
Signed-off-by: Eric Northup (Google) <digitaleric@...il.com>
to clarify the work was done for Google without having a double signoff
and/or a dead email.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists