Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:27:21 -0700
From:   Jon Cargille <jcargill@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.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)

> I assume you want to say something like:

That's a much better commit message--thank you, Sean!

> Jim's tag is unnecessary, unless he was a middleman between Eric and Jon,

I appreciate the feedback; I was trying to capture that Jim "was in
the patch's delivery path."
(per submitting-patches.rst), but it sounds like that is intended for
a more explicit middle-man
relationship than I had understood. Jim reviewed it internally before
sending, which sounds
like it should be expressed as an "Acked-by" instead; is that accurate?

>> Only one of Eric's signoffs is needed (the one that matches the From: tag,
> Ah, Eric's @google.com mail bounced.  Maybe do:
>
>   Signed-off-by: Eric Northup (Google) <digitaleric@...il.com>

Gotcha, thanks. Yes, when I conferred with Eric on submitting his
commits, he had wanted to
acknowledge that the work was done while he was at Google (e.g. his
old Google email addr),
and  I wanted to include current contact information for him as well.

Your suggestion to combine into a single Signed-off-by is a good one,
and I'll use that form
in the future.

Thanks much,

Jon

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:51 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> 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