[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/dis
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement |
Date: |
Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:05:27 +0100 |
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:26:03 +0100
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Please try reusing scratch CPU approach, see
> >> kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features()
> >> for an example. You will very likely end up with simpler series,
> >> compared to reinventing wheel.
> >
> > Even if I do that (and I serioulsy doubt it's going to be easier than
> > just adding two 'u64's, kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features() alone is 200
> > lines long) this is not going to give us what we need to distinguish
> > between
> >
> > 'hv-passthrough,hv-evmcs'
> >
> > and
> >
> > 'hv-passthrough'
> >
> > when 'hv-evmcs' *is* supported by the host. When guest CPU lacks VMX we
> > don't want to enable it unless it was requested explicitly (former but
> > not the later).
>
> ... and if for whatever reason we decide that this is also bad/not
> needed, I can just drop patches 16-18 from the series (leaving
> 'hv-passthrough,hv-feature=off' problem to better times).
that's also an option,
we would need to make sure that hv-passthrough is mutually exclusive
with ''all'' other hv- properties to avoid above combination being
ever (mis)used.
- [PATCH v4 11/21] i386: switch hyperv_expand_features() to using error_setg(), (continued)
- [PATCH v4 11/21] i386: switch hyperv_expand_features() to using error_setg(), Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 12/21] i386: adjust the expected KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID array size, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 10/21] i386: move eVMCS enablement to hyperv_init_vcpu(), Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 13/21] i386: prefer system KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID ioctl over vCPU's one, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/11
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/12
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/12
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/12
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/12
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement,
Igor Mammedov <=
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/12
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Andrew Jones, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/15
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/22