[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZHeP75vG8xA+UeHt@google.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 11:20:31 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: restore vmx_vmexit alignment
On Wed, May 31, 2023, Jon Kohler wrote:
> Commit 8bd200d23ec4 ("KVM: VMX: Flatten __vmx_vcpu_run()") changed
> vmx_vmexit from SYM_FUNC_START to SYM_INNER_LABEL, accidentally
> removing 16 byte alignment as SYM_FUNC_START uses SYM_A_ALIGN and
> SYM_INNER_LABEL does not. Josh mentioned [1] this was unintentional.
Anyone know if this is this stable material, or just nice to have?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists