Paolo, I have noticed that all the patches of these series were merged to origin/master
besides the last one which adds the patch itself.
Have you missed the last patch by mistake?
-Liran
> On 24 Sep 2019, at 18:42, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 24/09/19 17:34, Liran Alon wrote:
>> Gentle ping.
>
> I'm going to send another pull request to Linus this week and then will
> get back to this patch (and also Krish's performance counter series).
>
> Paolo
>
>>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 17:08, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This patch series aims to add a vmx test to verify the functionality
>>>> introduced by KVM commit:
>>>> 4b9852f4f389 ("KVM: x86: Fix INIT signal handling in various CPU states")
>>>>
>>>> The test verifies the following functionality:
>>>> 1) An INIT signal received when CPU is in VMX operation
>>>> is latched until it exits VMX operation.
>>>> 2) If there is an INIT signal pending when CPU is in
>>>> VMX non-root mode, it result in VMExit with (reason == 3).
>>>> 3) Exit from VMX non-root mode on VMExit do not clear
>>>> pending INIT signal in LAPIC.
>>>> 4) When CPU exits VMX operation, pending INIT signal in
>>>> LAPIC is processed.
>>>>
>>>> In order to write such a complex test, the vmx tests framework was
>>>> enhanced to support using VMX in non BSP CPUs. This enhancement is
>>>> implemented in patches 1-7. The test itself is implemented at patch 8.
>>>> This enhancement to the vmx tests framework is a bit hackish, but
>>>> I believe it's OK because this functionality is rarely required by
>>>> other VMX tests.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vitaly
>>
>
