On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/01/2018 01:55, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
> without talking to
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/01/2018 01:55, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
> without talking to x86 maintainers and
On 16/01/2018 01:55, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
This wants to go
On 16/01/2018 01:55, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
This wants to go through TIP or at
* Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
> >> without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
> >>
> >> This wants to go through TIP or at least reviewed and acked.
> >
* Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
> >> without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
> >>
> >> This wants to go through TIP or at least reviewed and acked.
> > In fact it needs to
On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
>> without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
>>
>> This wants to go through TIP or at least reviewed and acked.
> In fact it needs to go through TIP. We spent a lot of
On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
>> without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
>>
>> This wants to go through TIP or at least reviewed and acked.
> In fact it needs to go through TIP. We spent a lot of
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > @@@ -202,11 -201,9 +202,11 @@@
> > #define X86_FEATURE_HW_PSTATE ( 7*32+ 8) /* AMD
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > @@@ -202,11 -201,9 +202,11 @@@
> > #define X86_FEATURE_HW_PSTATE ( 7*32+ 8) /* AMD
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> @@@ -202,11 -201,9 +202,11 @@@
> #define X86_FEATURE_HW_PSTATE ( 7*32+ 8) /* AMD HW-PState */
> #define X86_FEATURE_PROC_FEEDBACK (
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> @@@ -202,11 -201,9 +202,11 @@@
> #define X86_FEATURE_HW_PSTATE ( 7*32+ 8) /* AMD HW-PState */
> #define X86_FEATURE_PROC_FEEDBACK (
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
between commit:
a89f040fa34e ("x86/cpufeatures: Add X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE")
from Linus' tree, commit:
76b043848fd2 ("x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support")
from the tip tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
between commit:
a89f040fa34e ("x86/cpufeatures: Add X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE")
from Linus' tree, commit:
76b043848fd2 ("x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support")
from the tip tree
14 matches
Mail list logo