On 16-09-12 01:30:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.09.16 at 05:26, wrote:
> > On 16-09-09 02:32:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> >> > First time, user wants to set L3 CAT of Dom1 to 0x1ff for example. The
> >> > old_cos
> >> > of Dom1 is 0. L3 CAT is the first ele
>>> On 12.09.16 at 05:26, wrote:
> On 16-09-09 02:32:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
>> > First time, user wants to set L3 CAT of Dom1 to 0x1ff for example. The
>> > old_cos
>> > of Dom1 is 0. L3 CAT is the first element of feature list. The COS
>> > registers
>> > va
On 16-09-09 11:14:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: refactor psr implementation in
> hypervisor."):
> > On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> > > Sorry, I may misunderstand you. Maybe "check_exceed_cos_max" is a good
> > > name?
> >
> > According to my knowledge of Eng
On 16-09-09 02:32:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> > On 16-09-08 03:54:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
> >> > On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> >> >> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: refactor psr implementation in
hypervisor."):
> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> > Sorry, I may misunderstand you. Maybe "check_exceed_cos_max" is a good name?
>
> According to my knowledge of English this would still need to be
> "check_exceeds_cos_max",
>>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> On 16-09-08 03:54:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
>> > On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
>> >> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range)(uint64_t *mask, struct feat_list
>> >> >> > *pFeat
On 16-09-08 03:54:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
> > On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> >> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range)(uint64_t *mask, struct feat_list
> >> >> > *pFeat,
> >> >> > +
>>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
> On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
>> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range)(uint64_t *mask, struct feat_list
>> >> > *pFeat,
>> >> > + unsigned int cos);
>> >>
>> >> According to the
On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> >> > + struct psr_socket_alloc_info *info);
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * get_old_set_new is used in set value process to get all features'
> >> > + * COS registers values according to orig
>> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
>> > + struct psr_socket_alloc_info *info);
>> > +/*
>> > + * get_old_set_new is used in set value process to get all features'
>> > + * COS registers values according to original cos id of the domain.
>> > + * Then, assem
Hi, Jan,
Thank you very much for reviewing my patches in details! Please
check my comments below.
On 16-09-06 01:40:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> > @@ -23,22 +23,116 @@
> > #define PSR_CAT(1<<1)
> >
>>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> @@ -23,22 +23,116 @@
> #define PSR_CAT(1<<1)
> #define PSR_CDP(1<<2)
>
> -struct psr_cat_cbm {
> -union {
> -uint64_t cbm;
> -struct {
> -uint64_t code;
> -
12 matches
Mail list logo
