[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527688406C0BDCF093C718858C509@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 05:15:44 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zeng, Guang" <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
"Zhong, Yang" <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 05/21] x86/fpu: Make XFD initialization in
__fpstate_reset() a function argument
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 3:44 AM
>
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 01:54:56PM -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > From: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
> >
> > vCPU threads are different from native tasks regarding to the initial XFD
> > value. While all native tasks follow a fixed value (init_fpstate::xfd)
> > established by the FPU core at boot, vCPU threads need to obey the reset
> > value (i.e. ZERO) defined by the specification, to meet the expectation of
> > the guest.
> >
> > Let the caller supply an argument and adjust the host and guest related
> > invocations accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> If Jing is author, then tglx's SOB should come after Jing's to mean,
> tglx handled it further.
>
> As it is now, it looks wrong.
Thanks for pointing it out! Actually this is one area which we didn't get
a clear answer from 'submitting-patches.rst' and now possibly a good
chance to get it clarified.
This patch was handled in an interesting way due to Jing's two absences:
Internal version: Jing was the original author
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
--- Jing's first absence ---
v1: Yang was the submitter:
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Thomas updated it in his personal branch when reviewing v1:
From: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
--- Jing was back ---
v2-v3: Jing was the submitter:
The open here is whether Jing should change the SoB order:
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
or just append her name again:
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
The former was selected for this patch.
--- Jing's 2nd absence ---
v4-v5: Yang was the submitter.
SoB order was partially changed (for Yang's SoB) but forgot to make Jing's
SoB as the first. It should be:
From: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
If the rule is that SoB order should not be changed, then it will be:
From: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
>
> Ditto for patches 10, 11, 12, 13.
>
> Also, I wonder if all those Signed-off-by's do mean "handled" or
> Co-developed-by but I haven't tracked that particular pile so...
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
> > Message-Id: <20220105123532.12586-6-yang.zhong@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists