On 19/12/18 22:28, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 12/19/18 1:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 19/12/18 21:54, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> I should have called this out in the changelog, but I removed *all* the
>>> support because I assumed that guests don't need MPX because no other OS
>>> supported it tha
On 12/19/18 1:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/12/18 21:54, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> I should have called this out in the changelog, but I removed *all* the
>> support because I assumed that guests don't need MPX because no other OS
>> supported it that I know of.
>
> Well, as long as you could
On 19/12/18 21:54, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I should have called this out in the changelog, but I removed *all* the
> support because I assumed that guests don't need MPX because no other OS
> supported it that I know of.
Well, as long as you could have code that sets the MPX bits in XCR0, KVM
will ha
On 12/19/18 12:32 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/12/18 05:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> I fixed it up (the former removed some code updated by the latter, so I
>> did that) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as
>> linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts s
On 19/12/18 05:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>
> between commit:
>
> eb012ef3b4e3 ("x86: Remove Intel MPX")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> b666a4b69739 ("kvm: x86: Dynamically allocate
5 matches
Mail list logo
