On 28/02/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 27.02.19 at 13:07, <igor.druzhi...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 27/02/2019 10:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>> albeit ... >>> >>>> @@ -323,6 +326,15 @@ static void setup_p6_watchdog(unsigned counter) >>>> unsigned int evntsel; >>>> >>>> nmi_perfctr_msr = MSR_P6_PERFCTR(0); >>>> + if ( !nmi_p6_event_width ) >>>> + nmi_p6_event_width = (current_cpu_data.cpuid_level >= 0xa) ? >>>> + MASK_EXTR(cpuid_eax(0xa), >>>> P6_EVENT_WIDTH_MASK) >> : >>>> + P6_EVENT_WIDTH_MIN; >>>> + if ( !nmi_p6_event_width ) >>>> + nmi_p6_event_width = P6_EVENT_WIDTH_MIN; >>> >>> ... I think this would now better be >>> >>> if ( !nmi_p6_event_width && current_cpu_data.cpuid_level >= 0xa ) >>> nmi_p6_event_width = MASK_EXTR(cpuid_eax(0xa), P6_EVENT_WIDTH_MASK); >>> if ( !nmi_p6_event_width ) >>> nmi_p6_event_width = P6_EVENT_WIDTH_MIN; >>> >>> Re-writing of which also mad me notice a hard tab in there. I'd be >>> fine making the adjustment while committing, as long as you agree. >> >> Thanks, I also didn't like how it looked eventually. I'll make the same >> adjustment to my copy of the patch as well then. >> >>> Btw, considering the combination of subject tag and Cc list I take it >>> that you don't intend this to go into 4.12? I ask because generally >>> I'd consider this a backporting candidate. >> >> Yes, I didn't intend it to target 4.12 as I don't consider it a serious >> issue - we've only seen it on one type of Supermicro machines >> (unfortunately, our lab is now almost 50% of them) so far with poor >> implementation of ERST. But I wouldn't mind if it was selected as a >> candidate for 4.12 and potential backporting. > > Jürgen, what do you think?
Release-acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com> Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
