Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/hvm: Add MSR old value

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/03/2018 12:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.12.17 at 10:09, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 04.12.17 at 16:45, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>  On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:50:57PM +0300, Alexandru Isaila wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds the old value param and the onchangeonly option
>>>>>> to the VM_EVENT_REASON_MOV_TO_MSR event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The param was added to the vm_event_mov_to_msr struct and to the
>>>>>> hvm_monitor_msr function. Finally I've changed the bool_t param
>>>>>> to a bool for the hvm_msr_write_intercept function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Isaila <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes since V1:
>>>>>>  - Removed Stray blanks inside the inner parentheses
>>>>>>  - Added space after the if statement
>>>>>>  - Added * 8 to the set/clear/test_bit statements
>>>>>>  - Removed the blank line after monitored_msr.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h     |  2 +-
>>>>>>  tools/libxc/xc_monitor.c          |  3 ++-
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Ping - AFAICT this patch has all the required acks?
>>>
>>> Sure, and it is not being forgotten. But the tree is not fully open
>>> yet, so it is subject to the judgment of committers whether any
>>> patch (or series) is suitable of committing at this point. I did think
>>> about committing this patch yesterday, but decided against
>>> doing so. Please be a little more patient - even once the tree is
>>> fully open, a few working days should be allowed for everyone
>>> to deal with backlog, before sending pings.
>>
>> Sorry for the previous early ping. Just to check: is there action
>> required on our part for this patch post-4.10 (rebasing, etc.)?
> 
> I've just tried to commit it, and I'm now puzzled: Before asking
> the question above, did you check whether re-basing might be
> necessary? The libxc changes don't apply anymore, and since
> it's not just fuzz that needs resolving I don't think I'm going to
> do that for you.

No, sorry for the misunderstanding - we didn't check if it needs
rebasing because it wasn't clear that that was the issue or something
else that would have been best solved along with rebasing.

That's very fair, if rebasing is all that's needed we're happy to rebase
and send a new version.


Thanks,
Razvan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel