On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:16:33AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 28/06/17 07:09, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marma...@invisiblethingslab.com> 06/28/17 > >>>> 3:09 AM >>> > >> It's bit 9 not 10 (which is ibs). > > Indeed, but shouldn't it rather be removed? We don't expose it from the > > hypervisor at all anymore: > > > > XEN_CPUFEATURE(OSVW, 3*32+ 9) /* OS Visible Workaround */ > > > > (note the absence of any marker character immediately inside the comment). > > I don't believe we have ever actually offered OSVW to guests, despite > the pretence of being able to. ISTR it was always clobbered before > being given to a guest. > > Having said that, we should be advertising OSVW. It's entire purpose is > to tell the OS that there is something it can do to manually work round > a specific erratum. OTOH, making this migrate safe is liable to be very > complicated...
I don't have opinion on either approach here, but the current state is clearly wrong. You've got two versions of the patch, choose one ;) -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
