[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] xl: Add support for ignore_msrs option
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:39:56 -0500
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oracle.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=oracle.com; dkim=pass header.d=oracle.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CB4e0nrpI7LxnTBH+KBrvWF/9vlpku20zCf+917DNjQ=; b=F6hNi0dalJRLmbG6OJIHRaLIHdklNwfCxJ/BRrQZeNT8F446XWB7++fWQSPQKT5gQIPXgcl6erA86FPoa3jq0CENYRNbGWQNlZKdQNJPTWlWTQl/y4uBL1C+FCgd5f3mQ0vESoNnJ84WVAVjqmlzs82WRZW9xJxlyaVQVyWZyp1B9THG6fW4iLJ87J1avK9kON7CBM4KNPqIQCuNFXP0mPsXxKoY4JN4oXsNRPdexLcnigBG85L4p40g0vIF9UIna5AVbuz+GFZlM/+rThCq/z4pf2Gr/ZD43ifv2VIJbDiWzg29oUC1wmBZr5RsfOiKm8BwsCDN6OaRywq6wz2HBg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=VrYjhMDT/nqZblI7R6+piHoR1zijGRXooI4OJ+sr8TS4OH5OGwCjWnyxcOBKuAsOWL3CencMCZYenrE7v6fQFLBG+OjCUAJX9ouL3j3EctEXPVvK3cFKqdvFLjgYqLoUOSlZHZ/+GUF13ebUZ+134I+gIZdscCmL9tO4//pT/09rHlVqF8jLUGfoA4ZHcWXFwzoZaUU0adxmGqCJVJOx007c+oSNRu2yBX9H2dDNk1VsjZjcgNVlFaVhUALcRWU2xb3mSxV1vvAvGSBfYx0NqbtB8QzkTfLbOZ16s3HnCvuEWIyYv2aLv+PR5Ow+tUNylYLD9jHcJFWcP1alovLAVg==
- Authentication-results: intel.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;intel.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=oracle.com;
- Cc: iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wl@xxxxxxx, anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx, jbeulich@xxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx, jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx, kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:40:14 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 1/22/21 1:33 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> Thanks. In which case, I would suggest to move the definition of ignore_msrs
> in the idle to an x86 specific structure. Maybe "arch_x86"?
I did consider this but left it in common area since there are already a bunch
of fields there that are x86-specific.
If there is desire to create an x86 sub-struct then we should move all of them
there.
-boris
>
> I noticed that none exists today, but we could duplicate that "arch_arm" one.
>
> Wei, Ian, what do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
|
