On 5/7/2025 9:22 PM, Michael Kelley wrote:
From: Roman Kisel <rom...@linux.microsoft.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025
11:22 AM
[...]>
I think this works. It's unfortunate that Patch 1 adds 11 lines of
code/comments that
Patch 2 then deletes, which seems like undesirable churn. I was expecting
adding the
"cpu" parameter to come first, which then makes fixing the hv_snp_boot_ap()
problem
more straightforward. But looking more closely, hv_snp_boot_ap() already has a
parameter erroneously named "cpu", so adding the correct "cpu" parameter isn't
transparent. Hence the order you've chosen is probably the best resolution for a
messy situation. :-)
Thanks, Michael :) Looked as a good trade-off, went ahead with it. Will
be happy to address any concerns of that folks might have!
Michael
arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c | 13 ++-----
arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/hyperv/hv_vtl.c | 54 ++++------------------------
arch/x86/hyperv/ivm.c | 11 ++++--
arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h | 8 ++---
arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h | 7 ++--
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/madt_wakeup.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_noop.c | 8 ++++-
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 10 +++---
include/hyperv/hvgdk_mini.h | 2 +-
12 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
base-commit: 9b0844d87b1407681b78130429f798beb366f43f
--
2.43.0
--
Thank you,
Roman
