>>> On 29.01.15 at 16:28, wrote:
> However, if you insist on dropping all tags even for minor changes like
> that (and "determining what "minor" is is a judgment call) I will
> certainly do that in the future.
I don't mind you (and others) keeping them for minor changes. But a
small change isn'
On 01/29/2015 06:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.01.15 at 20:56, wrote:
Don't have the hypervisor update APIC_LVTPC when _it_ thinks the vector
should be updated. Instead, handle guest's APIC_LVTPC accesses and write
what
the guest explicitly wanted (but only when VPMU is enabled).
This is upd
>>> On 28.01.15 at 20:56, wrote:
> Don't have the hypervisor update APIC_LVTPC when _it_ thinks the vector
> should be updated. Instead, handle guest's APIC_LVTPC accesses and write
> what
> the guest explicitly wanted (but only when VPMU is enabled).
>
> This is updated version of commit 809761
Don't have the hypervisor update APIC_LVTPC when _it_ thinks the vector
should be updated. Instead, handle guest's APIC_LVTPC accesses and write what
the guest explicitly wanted (but only when VPMU is enabled).
This is updated version of commit 8097616fbdda that was reverted by
cc3404093c85. Unlik
