Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 3/9] x86/head: Move early exception panic code into early_fixup_exception

On 4/4/2016 8:32 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: Adding locking would be easy enough, wouldn't it? But do any platforms really boot a second CPU before switching to real printk? Given that I see all the smpboot stuff in dmesg, I guess real printk happens first. I admit I haven't actually checked.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops

On 9/21/2015 9:36 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: Linus, what's your preference? So quite frankly, is there any reason we don't just implement native_read_msr() as just unsigned long long native_read_msr(unsigned int msr)

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] x86/paravirt: Fix baremetal paravirt MSR ops

( We should double check that rdmsr()/wrmsr() results are never left uninitialized, but are set to zero or so, for cases where the return code is not checked. ) It sure looks like native_read_msr_safe doesn't clear the output if the rdmsr fails. I'd suggest to return some poison not

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] x86/paravirt: Fix baremetal paravirt MSR ops

On 9/17/2015 8:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 17/09/2015 17:27, Arjan van de Ven wrote: ( We should double check that rdmsr()/wrmsr() results are never left uninitialized, but are set to zero or so, for cases where the return code is not checked. ) It sure looks like