On 01/12/2014 18:55, Radim Krčmář wrote: > 2014-12-01 17:22+0100, Paolo Bonzini: >> On 27/11/2014 20:03, Radim Krčmář wrote: >>> The interesting one is [3/4], which improves upon a previous CVE fix; >>> we also handle logical destination wrapping in it, so [2/4] does the >>> same for physical; and to make it nicer, [1/4] removes a condition. >>> [4/4] makes our fast path return true when the message was handled. >>> >>> Radim Krčmář (4): >>> KVM: x86: deliver phys lowest-prio >>> KVM: x86: fix APIC physical destination wrapping >>> KVM: x86: allow 256 logical x2APICs again >>> KVM: x86: don't retry hopeless APIC delivery >>> >>> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- >>> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 2 -- >>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>> >> >> So the order should be 1/2/5/3/4, right? > > It would be safer, thank you. > > (And when I look at it now, [4/4] would be better as 1st.)
Ok, applying 4/1/2/5/3. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
