>>> On 22.02.16 at 06:35, <shuai.r...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
First of all I wonder on what basis you collect your Cc lists on patches. > --- a/xen/arch/x86/i387.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i387.c > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static inline uint64_t vcpu_xsave_mask(const struct vcpu > *v) > if ( v->fpu_dirtied ) > return v->arch.nonlazy_xstate_used ? XSTATE_ALL : XSTATE_LAZY; > > - return v->arch.nonlazy_xstate_used ? XSTATE_NONLAZY : 0; > + return ( cpu_has_xsaves || cpu_has_xsavec ) ? XSTATE_ALL : > XSTATE_NONLAZY; > } The description lacks any mention of the performance impact, and what investigation was done to find ways to perhaps overcome this. For example, regardless of cpu_has_xsaves, do we really always need to _use_ XSAVES? Also - coding style (stray spaces inside parentheses). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
