On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31:38AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:16:10PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 07:52:16PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:42:17AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > Doesn't bother me, I could do it in a patch ontop. But your call. > > > > > > > > No objection here. > > > > > > Something like this: > > > > > > --- > > > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > ... so that "offsetting" is spelled the same as the respective VMX feature > > > bit VMX_FEATURE_TSC_OFFSETTING. > > > > > > No functional changes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Reviewed-and-tested-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> > > Yah, so I tried to do a test-merge with linux-next to see what surprises should > I be prepared for and there's the first one: > > 5e3d394fdd9e ("KVM: VMX: Fix the spelling of CPU_BASED_USE_TSC_OFFSETTING") > > which is already in Paolo's tree. Dropping it on my side. Doh, now that you point it out, I remember that patch going by. Sorry I didn't recall it earlier. Thanks for your help!