On Wed, Nov 03, 2021, Vipin Sharma wrote: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 4:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2021, Vipin Sharma wrote: > > > Handle #GP on INVPCID due to an invalid type in the common switch > > > statement instead of relying on the callers (VMX and SVM) to manually > > > validate the type. > > > > > > Unlike INVVPID and INVEPT, INVPCID is not explicitly documented to check > > > the type before reading the operand from memory, so deferring the > > > type validity check until after that point is architecturally allowed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > For future reference, a R-b that comes with qualifiers can be carried so long as > > the issues raised by the reviewer are addressed. Obviously it can be somewhat > > subjective, but common sense usually goes a long ways, and most reviewers won't > > be too grumpy about mistakes so long as you had good intentions and remedy any > > mistakes. And if you're in doubt, you can always add a blurb in the cover letter > > or ignored part of the patch to explicitly confirm that it was ok to add the tag, > > e.g. "Sean, I added your Reviewed-by in patch 02 after fixing the changelog, let > > me know if that's not what you intended". > > > > Thanks! > > > > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I was not sure if I can add R-b as it was only for the code and not > changelog. Good to know that I can ask such things in the cover letter > or the ignored part of the patch. Ah, that's my bad, that was indeed a very confusing way to phrase my contingent review.
