Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 26/31] xen/x86: Rework AMD masking MSR setup

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.01.16 at 18:03, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22/01/16 14:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And then, how is this supposed to work? You only restore defaults,
>>>>>> but never write non-default values. Namely, nextd is an unused
>>>>>> function parameter ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I guess my comment about adding unused code needs
>>>>>> repeating here.
>>>>> Future patches build on this, both using the parameter, and not using
>>>>> the defaults.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also certain that if I did two patches, the first putting in a void
>>>>> function, and the second changing it to a pointer, your review would ask
>>>>> me to turn it into this.
>>>> Well, I realize things will all make sense by the end of the series, but
>>>> honestly in some of the cases I'm not sure the split between patches
>>>> was well done.
>>> If you can suggest a better ordering then I am all ears.
>> For example, move all the context switch logic into the patch
>> actually invoking the new hook. That still leaves more than
>> enough in the AMD and Intel rework patches.
> 
> But the context switch logic is used by this patch, which is why it is
> introduced here.
> 
> It takes the BSP/AP from the boot state into the default levelled state,
> by passing NULL as the pointer.  See the final hunk, which modifies
> early_init_amd().

Ah, right. Goes back to me not recognizing the dual purpose of that
function (as noted elsewhere in reply to some of your explanations).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel