On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:44 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 21/05/21 22:58, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:49 PM Marc Orr <marcorr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Compared to the last version, I've:
> > > > (1) dropped the vmalloc patches
> > > > (2) updated the kmem cache for the guest_fpu field in the kvm_vcpu_arch
> > > > struct to be sized according to fpu_kernel_xstate_size
> > > > (3) Added minimum FPU checks in KVM's x86 init logic to avoid memory
> > > > corruption issues.
> > > >
> > > > Marc Orr (2):
> > > > kvm: x86: Use task structs fpu field for user
> > > > kvm: x86: Dynamically allocate guest_fpu
> > > >
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 10 +++---
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 10 ++++++
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 10 ++++++
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > > 4 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> > > Whatever happened to this series?
> >
> > There was a question about the usage of kmem_cache_create_usercopy, and a v7
> > was never sent.
>
> What's that go to do with anything? :-D
>
> b666a4b69739 ("kvm: x86: Dynamically allocate guest_fpu")
> 240c35a3783a ("kvm: x86: Use task structs fpu field for user")
So, that's what the series was trimmed down to. Thanks!
Did we still manage to get down to order 2?
