On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 7:41 AM Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > > On 10/5/18 2:00 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: > > On 9/27/18 2:25 PM, George Dunlap wrote: > >> The name of the "with_gla" flag is confusing; it has nothing to do > >> with the existence or lack thereof of a faulting GLA, but rather where > >> the fault originated. The npfec.kind value is always valid, and > >> should thus be propagated, regardless of whether gla_valid is set or > >> not. > >> > >> In particular, gla_valid will never be set on AMD systems; but > >> npfec.kind will still be valid and should still be propagated. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Isaila <aisa...@bitdefender.com> > >> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> > > > > Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> > > Does this also need Tamas' ack to go in?
Hm, I recall acking this patch before. In any case: Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
