Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/VPMU: Handle APIC_LVTPC accesses

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/29/2015 06:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 28.01.15 at 20:56, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 8097616fbdda that was reverted by
> > cc3404093c85. Unlike the previous version, we don't update APIC_LVTPC
> > when VPMU is disabled to avoid interfering with NMI watchdog (which
> > runs only when VPMU is off).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Even leaving aside the functionality change, on an updated patch
> the previous version of which needed to be reverted, retaining
> _any_ such tags is wrong from my pov. I asked you before to be
> more conservative with retaining tags, and I'm now going to reserve
> the right to no longer point out such issues, but silently drop such
> patches coming from you.

I dropped your tag from this patch.

I kept Kevin's since he ACKed Intel changes and they are the same in 
this version.
Dietmar's tag was left here since he tested this patch without watchdog 
anyway and the 2-line addition here would not change anything.
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.

-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel