>>> On 08.07.16 at 13:55, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 7/8/2016 2:48 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 08.07.16 at 13:39, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >>> On 7/6/2016 6:49 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: >>>> Minor optimization @ vmx_update_guest_cr: checks if >>> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control >>>> was modified before actually calling vmx_update_cpu_exec_control(v). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com> >>>> --- >>>> Changed since v2: <nothing> >>>> --- >>>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 5 ++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>>> index df19579..8ab074f 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>>> @@ -1434,8 +1434,10 @@ static void vmx_update_guest_cr(struct vcpu *v, >>> unsigned int cr) >>>> if ( paging_mode_hap(v->domain) ) >>>> { >>>> /* Manage GUEST_CR3 when CR0.PE=0. */ >>>> + uint32_t old_ctls = v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control; >>>> uint32_t cr3_ctls = (CPU_BASED_CR3_LOAD_EXITING | >>>> CPU_BASED_CR3_STORE_EXITING); >>>> + >>>> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control &= ~cr3_ctls; >>>> if ( !hvm_paging_enabled(v) && !vmx_unrestricted_guest(v) ) >>>> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control |= cr3_ctls; >>>> @@ -1445,7 +1447,8 @@ static void vmx_update_guest_cr(struct vcpu *v, >>> unsigned int cr) >>>> monitor_ctrlreg_bitmask(VM_EVENT_X86_CR3) ) >>>> v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control |= >>>> CPU_BASED_CR3_LOAD_EXITING; >>>> >>>> - vmx_update_cpu_exec_control(v); >>>> + if ( old_ctls != v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control ) >>>> + vmx_update_cpu_exec_control(v); >>>> } >>>> >>>> if ( !nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode(v) ) >>> I'm wondering if you could ack this as well (if there's nothing wrong w/ >>> it) and push it to be done with it. :-) >> Well, if you had pinged the patch at least once, I probably would. >> I don't, however, recall having seen any such ping (only resends). > > So is a 'ping' (haven't done that before) still necessary? Is a ping a > simple 'reply-to-all' including 'Ping: ' in the subject? :-)
It's not very much formalized. What I do in such a case is, as you say, prefix the subject with Ping:, but change addressing so that the people expected to reply end up in To:, while everyone else in the original To: list (i.e. including xen-devel) would get moved to Cc:. And while, with the adjustment to addressees in my earlier reply, I already tried to do kind of a ping to them, I think it wouldn't hurt if you did another explicit one. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel