"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <michael.h.kel...@microsoft.com> writes:
> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 > 2:26 AM > >> > I was trying to decide if there are any arguments in favor of one >> > approach vs. the other: a per-cpu flag in memory or checking >> > the synic_control "enable" bit. Seems like a wash to me, in which >> > case I have a slight preference for the per-cpu flag in memory vs. >> > creating another function to return sctrl.enable. But I'm completely >> > open to reasons why checking sctrl.enable is better. >> >> Just a few thoughts: reading MSR is definitely slower but we avoid >> 'shadowing' the state, the reading is always correct. In case there's a >> chance the SynIC will get disabled from host side we can only find this >> out by doing MSR read. This is a purely theoretical possibility, I >> believe, we can go ahead with this patch. > > Vitaly -- just to confirm: you are OK with the patch as is? (I'll > check, but I may need to rebase on the latest code.) Yes, feel free to use my R-b tag. -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
