On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 04:47:38PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Because I'm mixing paravirt and cpufeatures a bit oddly.
>
> That's fine. All X86_BUG_* are synthetic and exactly for stuff like
> that.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 04:47:38PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Because I'm mixing paravirt and cpufeatures a bit oddly.
That's fine. All X86_BUG_* are synthetic and exactly for stuff like
that.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
_
On Mar 1, 2016 2:46 PM, "Borislav Petkov" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:50:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Borislav, if you're okay with this (ab)use of the cpufeatures stuff
>
> Because of X86_BUG_ESPFIX? Why abuse?
Because I'm mixing paravirt and cpufeatures a bit oddly.
>
> --
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:50:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Borislav, if you're okay with this (ab)use of the cpufeatures stuff
Because of X86_BUG_ESPFIX? Why abuse?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
__
[v2 because I screwed up sending it really badly and it's not worth
trying to disentangle the mess]
Hi Luis-
As promised, here are these patches.
Borislav, if you're okay with this (ab)use of the cpufeatures stuff
and if they survive review, I'd be okay with them joining Luis'
series or going st
