On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
On
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Xen advertises the underlying support for
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On September 14, 2016 6:17:51 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
>>On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
>>>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On September 14, 2016 6:17:51 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
>>On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
>>> wrote:
On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>
Is any
On September 14, 2016 6:17:51 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski
wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>
>>> Is
On September 14, 2016 6:17:51 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski
wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>
>>> Is any of this useful to optimize away at compile-time? We have
>config
On 09/15/2016 03:11 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
>>> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
On 09/15/2016 03:11 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
>>> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
through writes to the relevant MSR, nor
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
>>> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
>>> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
through writes to the relevant
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
>> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
>> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>>> not
>>> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>> not actually work. For now mask off the
>>> On 15.09.16 at 12:05, wrote:
> On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on
On 14/09/16 22:35, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on
On 14/09/16 22:35, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on
On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
Could you clarify in the commit
On 14/09/16 22:01, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
Could you clarify in the commit
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>
>>> Is any of
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>
>>> Is any of this useful to optimize away at compile-time? We have config
>>>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
> wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Is any of this useful to optimize away at compile-time? We have config
>> options for when
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
> wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Is any of this useful to optimize away at compile-time? We have config
>> options for when we're running as a guest, and this seems like a
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>> not actually
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dave Hansen
wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
>> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
>> not actually work. For now mask off the
On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
That needs to make it into
On 09/14/2016 02:01 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
> through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
> not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
That needs to make it into
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey
---
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey
---
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey
---
Xen advertises the underlying support for CPUID faulting but not does pass
through writes to the relevant MSR, nor does it virtualize it, so it does
not actually work. For now mask off the relevant bit on MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey
---
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
30 matches
Mail list logo