Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] Documentation: virtual: kvm: Support vcpu preempted check

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:05:39 +0200

2016-10-24 16:42+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 21/10/2016 20:39, [email-masked] wrote:
>> 2016-10-21 11:27+0000, David Laight:
>>> From: Pan Xinhui
>>>> Sent: 20 October 2016 22:28
>>>> Commit ("x86, kvm: support vcpu preempted check") add one field "__u8
>>>> preempted" into struct kvm_steal_time. This field tells if one vcpu is
>>>> running or not.
>>>>
>>>> It is zero if 1) some old KVM deos not support this filed. 2) the vcpu is
>>>> preempted. Other values means the vcpu has been preempted.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <[email-masked]>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/virtual/kvm/msr.txt | 8 +++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/msr.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/msr.txt
>>>> index 2a71c8f..3376f13 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/msr.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/msr.txt
>>>> @@ -208,7 +208,8 @@ MSR_KVM_STEAL_TIME: 0x4b564d03
>>>>  		__u64 steal;
>>>>  		__u32 version;
>>>>  		__u32 flags;
>>>> -		__u32 pad[12];
>>>> +		__u8  preempted;
>>>> +		__u32 pad[11];
>>>>  	}
>>>
>>> I think I'd be explicit about the 3 pad bytes you've left.
>> 
>> Seconded.
>> 
>> With that change are all KVM bits
>> 
>> Acked-by: Radim Krčmář <[email-masked]>
> 
> Saw this after replying to the previous message.  If you need to post v6
> of the full series, it would be nice if you removed the
> kvm_read_guest_cached.  But anyway it wasn't my intention to override Radim.

The patch was acceptable to me even now, so I definitely wouldn't mind
if it were even nicer. :)