linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] x86/ioapic: Generate RTE directly from parent irqchip's MSI message

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <A2753AD1-9BE8-43D8-870D-236C394A892B@infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 24 Oct 2020 11:13:06 +0100
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
CC:     kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] x86/ioapic: Generate RTE directly from parent irqchip's MSI message



On 24 October 2020 10:13:36 BST, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>On 24/10/20 10:26, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> I was also hoping Paolo was going to take the patch which just
>defines
>> the KVM_FEATURE_MSI_EXT_DEST_ID bit² ASAP, so that we end up with a
>> second patch³ that *just* wires it up to x86_init.msi_ext_dest_id()
>for
>> KVM.
>> 
>> ¹
>https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/commitdiff/734719c1f4
>> ²
>https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/commitdiff/3f371d6749
>> ³
>https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/commitdiff/8399e14eb5
>
>Yes, I am going to take it.
>
>I was already sort of playing with fire with the 5.10 pull request (and
>with me being lousy in general during the 5.10 development period, to
>be
>honest), so I left it for rc2 or rc3.  It's just docs and it happened
>to
>conflict with another documentation patch that had gone in through Jon
>Corbet's tree.

OK, thanks. I'll rework Thomas's tree with that first and the other changes I'd mentioned in my parts, as well as fixing up that unholy chimæra of struct/union in which we set some bitfields from each side of the union, test and push it out later today.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.