On Mon, May 09, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 0/30] nVMX: Nested VMX, v9": > Okay, truly excellent. The code is now a lot more readable, and I'm > almost beginning to understand it. The code comments are also very > good, I wish we had the same quality comments in the rest of kvm. We > can probably merge the next iteration if there aren't significant > comments from others. Thanks! > The only worrying thing is the issue you raise in patch 8. Is there a > simple fix you can push that addresses correctness? I'll fix this for the next iteration. I wanted to avoid changing the existing vcpus_on_cpu machinary, but you're probably right - it's better to just do this correctly once and for all than to try to explain the problem away, or to pray that future processors also continue to work properly if you "forget" to vmclear a vmcs... -- Nadav Har'El | Monday, May 9 2011, 5 Iyyar 5771 nyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A diplomat thinks twice before saying http://nadav.harel.org.il |nothing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
