lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] KVM: Move INVPCID type check from vmx and svm to the common kvm_handle_invpcid()
    On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 4:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, Nov 03, 2021, Vipin Sharma wrote:
    > > Handle #GP on INVPCID due to an invalid type in the common switch
    > > statement instead of relying on the callers (VMX and SVM) to manually
    > > validate the type.
    > >
    > > Unlike INVVPID and INVEPT, INVPCID is not explicitly documented to check
    > > the type before reading the operand from memory, so deferring the
    > > type validity check until after that point is architecturally allowed.
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
    > > ---
    >
    > For future reference, a R-b that comes with qualifiers can be carried so long as
    > the issues raised by the reviewer are addressed. Obviously it can be somewhat
    > subjective, but common sense usually goes a long ways, and most reviewers won't
    > be too grumpy about mistakes so long as you had good intentions and remedy any
    > mistakes. And if you're in doubt, you can always add a blurb in the cover letter
    > or ignored part of the patch to explicitly confirm that it was ok to add the tag,
    > e.g. "Sean, I added your Reviewed-by in patch 02 after fixing the changelog, let
    > me know if that's not what you intended".
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

    I was not sure if I can add R-b as it was only for the code and not
    changelog. Good to know that I can ask such things in the cover letter
    or the ignored part of the patch.

    Thanks
    Vipin

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-11-04 06:20    [W:4.092 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site