On 17/06/2015 13:11, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> peterz reminded me that I'm lazy actually and don't reply to each patch :)
>
> So, I like it, looks good, nice cleanup. It boots on my guest here - I
> haven't done any baremetal testing though. Let's give people some more
> time to look at it...
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 05:35:48PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> My sincere apologies for the spam. I send an unholy mixture of the
> real patch set and an old poorly split-up patch set, and the result
> is incomprehensible. Here's what I meant to send.
>
> After the some recent threads about
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 05:35:48PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
My sincere apologies for the spam. I send an unholy mixture of the
real patch set and an old poorly split-up patch set, and the result
is incomprehensible. Here's what I meant to send.
After the some recent threads about
On 17/06/2015 13:11, Borislav Petkov wrote:
peterz reminded me that I'm lazy actually and don't reply to each patch :)
So, I like it, looks good, nice cleanup. It boots on my guest here - I
haven't done any baremetal testing though. Let's give people some more
time to look at it...
Same
My sincere apologies for the spam. I send an unholy mixture of the
real patch set and an old poorly split-up patch set, and the result
is incomprehensible. Here's what I meant to send.
After the some recent threads about rdtsc barriers, I remembered
that our RDTSC wrappers are a big mess.
My sincere apologies for the spam. I send an unholy mixture of the
real patch set and an old poorly split-up patch set, and the result
is incomprehensible. Here's what I meant to send.
After the some recent threads about rdtsc barriers, I remembered
that our RDTSC wrappers are a big mess.
6 matches
Mail list logo
