Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     "mhkelley58\@gmail.com" <mhkelley58@gmail.com>,
        "gregkh\@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devel\@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@linuxdriverproject.org>,
        "olaf\@aepfle.de" <olaf@aepfle.de>,
        "apw\@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>,
        "jasowang\@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "marcelo.cerri\@canonical.com" <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Make synic_initialized flag per-cpu
References: <1533004484-3937-1-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
        <87ftzzodnv.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
        <CY4PR21MB0773EFCF6EA21CF8F9CE01E0DC2D0@CY4PR21MB0773.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
        <8736vyo2tm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
        <CY4PR21MB077375C31D9211486C328328DC0A0@CY4PR21MB0773.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:59:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR21MB077375C31D9211486C328328DC0A0@CY4PR21MB0773.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
        (Michael Kelley's message of "Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:20:19 +0000")
Message-ID: <87va7uxl4s.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com> writes:

> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>  Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 2:26 AM
>
>> > I was trying to decide if there are any arguments in favor of one
>> > approach vs. the other:  a per-cpu flag in memory or checking
>> > the synic_control "enable" bit.   Seems like a wash to me, in which
>> > case I have a slight preference for the per-cpu flag in memory vs.
>> > creating another function to return sctrl.enable.  But I'm completely
>> > open to reasons why checking sctrl.enable is better.
>> 
>> Just a few thoughts: reading MSR is definitely slower but we avoid
>> 'shadowing' the state, the reading is always correct. In case there's a
>> chance the SynIC will get disabled from host side we can only find this
>> out by doing MSR read. This is a purely theoretical possibility, I
>> believe, we can go ahead with this patch.
>
> Vitaly -- just to confirm:  you are OK with the patch as is?  (I'll
> check, but I may need to rebase on the latest code.)

Yes, feel free to use my R-b tag.

-- 
  Vitaly