RE: [RFC PATCH v6 1/6] KVM: x86: only allow exits disable before vCPUs created

[Kechen Lu]

Hi Greg,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:28 PM
> To: Kechen Lu <kechenl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx; pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx;
> zhi.wang.linux@xxxxxxxxx; chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx; shaoqin.huang@xxxxxxxxx;
> vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/6] KVM: x86: only allow exits disable before
> vCPUs created
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:07:33AM +0000, Kechen Lu wrote:
> > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Since VMX and SVM both would never update the control bits if exits
> > are disable after vCPUs are created, only allow setting exits disable
> > flag before vCPU creation.
> >
> > Fixes: 4d5422cea3b6 ("KVM: X86: Provide a capability to disable MWAIT
> > intercepts")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Nit, no blank line between fixes and signed-off-by please.

Ack.

> 
> And an RFC on v6?  An RFC usually means "I don't think this is correct so do
> not take it".  How can you do that for 6 versions?  And know that no one will
> take an RFC series for that reason (or at least I will
> not...)

Thanks for correcting this, this is my bad. The v2 to v4 revisions, there are big changes 
on the following patches after this prerequisite patch, so I still "RFC" for the design.
But I should drop the "RFC" starting from v5, there are already consensus on the v5 design 
options

Best Regards,
Kechen

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h