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;
Date:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:06:47 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, toshi.kani@hpe.com,
        fei1.li@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/mtrr, pat: make PAT independent from MTRR
Message-ID: <20190809070647.GA2152@zn.tnic>
References: <cover.1565300606.git.isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1565300606.git.isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:54:17PM -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> Make PAT(Page Attribute Table) independent from
> MTRR(Memory Type Range Register).
> Some environments (mainly virtual ones) support only PAT, but not MTRR
> because PAT replaces MTRR.
> It's tricky and no gain to support both MTRR and PAT except compatibility.
> So some VM technologies don't support MTRR, but only PAT.
> This patch series makes PAT available on such environments without MTRR.

And this "justification" is not even trying. Which "VM technologies" are
those? Why do we care? What's the impact? Why do we want this?

You need to sell this properly.

Also, your patches are huge. You'd need to split them sensibly.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.