On 05/11/2015 03:04, Kai Huang wrote:
>
> Thanks for applying! I am really sorry that I forgot to delete the line
> that clears SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_PML bit in vmx_disable_pml, which is
> renamed to vmx_destroy_pml_buffer now.
> It won't impact functionality but to make the function consistent,
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for applying! I am really sorry that I forgot to delete the line
that clears SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_PML bit in vmx_disable_pml, which is
renamed to vmx_destroy_pml_buffer now.
It won't impact functionality but to make the function consistent, would
you also do below? Sorry for
On 04/11/2015 06:46, Kai Huang wrote:
> I found PML was broken since below commit:
>
> commit feda805fe7c4ed9cf78158e73b1218752e3b4314
> Author: Xiao Guangrong
> Date: Wed Sep 9 14:05:55 2015 +0800
>
> KVM: VMX: unify SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL update
>
> Unify
I found PML was broken since below commit:
commit feda805fe7c4ed9cf78158e73b1218752e3b4314
Author: Xiao Guangrong
Date: Wed Sep 9 14:05:55 2015 +0800
KVM: VMX: unify SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL update
Unify the update in vmx_cpuid_update()
Signed
I found PML was broken since below commit:
commit feda805fe7c4ed9cf78158e73b1218752e3b4314
Author: Xiao Guangrong
Date: Wed Sep 9 14:05:55 2015 +0800
KVM: VMX: unify SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL update
Unify the update in vmx_cpuid_update()
Signed