[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: |
Vitaly Kuznetsov |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:56:19 +0100 |
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> writes:
> 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.
That's an option to finally get these patches merged, not a good option
for end users.
'hv-passthrough,hv-feature' works today and it's useful. Should we drop
it?
'hv-passthrough/hv-default' and 'hv-passthrough/hv-default,hv-evmcs'
should give us sane results.
'hv-passthrough,hv-feature=off' is convenient.
Why droppping this all? To save 9 (nine) lines of code in the parser?
--
Vitaly
- [PATCH v4 12/21] i386: adjust the expected KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID array size, (continued)
- [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, 2021/02/12
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <=
- 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
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, Igor Mammedov, 2021/02/23