[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96d1bdd71386b91ff80b5458666bf81f544539d0.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 22:06:56 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/25] x86/fpu/xstate: Opt-in kernel dynamic bits when
calculate guest xstate size
On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 10:24 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> + /*
> + * Calculate the resulting kernel state size. Note,
> @permitted also
> + * contains supervisor xfeatures even though supervisor are
> always
> + * permitted for kernel and guest FPUs, and never permitted
> for user
> + * FPUs.
What is a user FPU vs kernel FPU in this context? By user FPU do you
mean, like user FPU state in a sigframe or something? Or a kernel
task's FPU? If the former I think this comment could be made more
clear. Maybe just drop the bit about user FPUs. At least the comment
makes more sense to me without it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists