[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] x86/CPUID: correct error indicator for max extended leaf

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:29:09 +0100
Authentication-results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:29:23 +0000
Ironport-sdr: Q47QSwH1T/DS5B0ActYX3BQu40sA6UWVichvIGhQv22eweOT6gBHgkeeVuEHtztef6rU5hyLwr ukCJgeKovpRasPAdwNpp0KxLNPCWw0B0+rSd7Gv6/KHnjzEp5+yzTztf3UeMIMX3tWbOC8b2Mr aGwN16dG4NN67xCUDIRIhZGXWckExnmPeNswvEYip1z2VTdnozmTflJvRxykGV/Auo/sfW6RMt jAN6hsdT8SobS3pNBtqsV9vhEE6t7jK42X/hsnOCNJsCFVKpFVcyOCVZqDSP17RePYpPTcw8Ir gVk=
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 29/04/2020 15:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> With the max base leaf using 0, this one should be using the extended
> leaf counterpart thereof, rather than some arbitrary extended leaf.
>
> Fixes: 588a966a572e ("libx86: Introduce x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible()")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

References:
- [PATCH] x86/CPUID: correct error indicator for max extended leaf
  - From: Jan Beulich

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] pvcalls: Document explicitly the padding for all arches
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] xen/common/domctl: introduce XEN_DOMCTL_get/setdomaincontext
Previous by thread: [PATCH] x86/CPUID: correct error indicator for max extended leaf
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.