Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751988AbdCAJTN (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:19:13 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:12233 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750968AbdCAJTL (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:19:11 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,224,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="70319295" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: Emulate UMIP (or almost do so) To: Paolo Bonzini References: <1468351223-3250-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <0543af50-8961-38a7-1acc-aaefd4915dda@redhat.com> Cc: qian.ouyang@intel.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" From: Yu Zhang Message-ID: <58B68E91.4010400@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:04:17 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0543af50-8961-38a7-1acc-aaefd4915dda@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 936 Lines: 26 On 12/13/2016 7:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 13/12/2016 05:03, Li, Liang Z wrote: >> Hi Paolo, >> >> We intended to enable UMIP for KVM and found you had already worked on it. >> Do you have any plan for the following patch set? It's there anything else you expect >> us help to do? > Yes, I plan to resend these patches for 4.11. Hi Paolo, Previously we saw your RFC patches of UMIP sent out, and we would like to try some unit test in Intel. I found a patch written by you in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9225929/, guess this is for the kvm unit test(though I failed to git apply it directly). And I wonder, when will it be integrated to kvm unit test repo? Besides, is this all the test for UMIP unit test? I.e. do we need to construct a scenario in the test to trigger vm exit and let hypervisor inject a GP fault? - I did not see this scenario in this patch. Or any other suggestions? :-) Thanks Yu