On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 04:39:54PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 25.11.14 at 17:19, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 11/25/2014 09:55 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > >>> Regardless, do you think that disabling VPMU for PVH is worth anyway? > >> That depends on what (bad) consequences not doing so has. > > > > I haven't seen anything (besides VAPIC accesses) but I think it would be > > prudent to prevent any VPMU activity from happening. I can see, for > > example MSRs and APIC vector being written. All of which look benign on > > the first sight but who knows... > > Yeah, it's not really a problem to put it in (if Konrad agrees; remember > that PVH is still experimental, and hence fixing bugs caused only by it > may be out of scope at this point - in any event I think that if your > patch is to go in, mine should too).
The beaty of experimental is that we can add it later in the cycle as at worst they will regress something that is unbaked already. >From that perspective the bar to put fixes for 'experimental' is lower than normal code. The part that I am worried about is the common paths and this potentially causing regressions on the those. But the potential for that is low that I am OK with these patches going in. > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
