[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8uUAFv9Qz7GvSei@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 08:28:00 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kechen Lu <kechenl@...dia.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
zhi.wang.linux@...il.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
shaoqin.huang@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/6] KVM: x86: only allow exits disable before
vCPUs created
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:07:33AM +0000, Kechen Lu wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
>
> Since VMX and SVM both would never update the control bits if exits
> are disable after vCPUs are created, only allow setting exits
> disable flag before vCPU creation.
>
> Fixes: 4d5422cea3b6 ("KVM: X86: Provide a capability to disable MWAIT intercepts")
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Nit, no blank line between fixes and signed-off-by please.
And an RFC on v6? An RFC usually means "I don't think this is correct
so do not take it". How can you do that for 6 versions? And know that
no one will take an RFC series for that reason (or at least I will
not...)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists