From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752131Ab1AFJgN (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 04:36:13 -0500 Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]:7970 "EHLO mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752037Ab1AFJgK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 04:36:10 -0500 From: Ian Campbell To: Sheng Yang Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <201101061723.29523.sheng@linux.intel.com> References: <1292912329-12451-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <201101060920.47797.sheng@linux.intel.com> <1294305030.3831.3590.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <201101061723.29523.sheng@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:35:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1294306557.3831.3610.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 62.200.22.2 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ijc@hellion.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] xen: HVM X2APIC support X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on hopkins.hellion.org.uk) X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=R50lirqlHffDPPkwUlkuVa99MrvKdVWo//yz83qex8g= c=1 sm=0 a=z0RUBZs6AVsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=tO-QY-n3alikPgZONTsA:9 a=oWvAxrM7PvduAgpftvjmhdOejZMA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:23 +0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > Thanks for the comments, but seems it's a little late. The patches have been there > for more than a month since the first version, and now they are finally in the > tree... And since it's not a bug, could we leave it to the later clean up? Sure. Are you going to do that? > > > > Also, checking for the XenVMMXenVMM signature alone seems like a very > > > > broad test for checking the availability of a specific feature, is > > > > there nothing more specific which we could/should be testing? > > > > > > The CPU flag x2apic is checked when we want to enable x2apic, and only > > > Xen which supported x2apic emulation would show this flag. > > > > A comment to that effect, in the checkin commentary if not the code, > > would be a useful reminder of this. > > The caller of the function indicate so, it's in the x2apic enabling code(which is > the same as KVM). So I think that maybe enough. It's not obvious to the likes of me but if it makes sense to people who know x2apic (but not necessarily Xen or KVM) then I guess it's ok. Ian. -- Ian Campbell Current Noise: Death - Spirit Crusher I know you're in search of yourself, I just haven't seen you anywhere.