Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] i386: remove the new CPUID 'PCONFIG' from Icelake-Server CPU model

[Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, 2018-12-21 at 07:27 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/12/18 13:50, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 13:38 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 20/12/18 01:18, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > > > I think the sooner, the better. Take the time window that
> > > > Icelake
> > > > CPU
> > > > model has just shipped with QEMU 3.1.0 and is not
> > > > publicly/widely
> > > > used
> > > > yet.
> > > 
> > > We should still leave it in the 3.1 machine types.  I've just
> > > sent a
> > > patch to do the same with MPX.
> > > 
> > 
> > I took a look your patch of "Disable MPX support on named CPU
> > models".
> > Seems you do the same as I do to PCONFIG. So you agree with my
> > above
> > patch?:-)
> > 
> > I won't object that keep it in 3.1 machine type as you do to MPX.
> 
> Sorry Robert, I changed my mind.  If no hypervisor exists that
> enables
> PCONFIG for guests (using the PCONFIG_ENABLE processor control),
> effectively no one can ever have used it.  We should disable it in
> all
> machine types and Cc qemu-stable.

Thanks Paolo.
> 
> In fact, the same is true for INTEL_PT, which is not supported by any
> released kernel version and, even is going to be available only with
> a
> module parameter when it will be.

Add Luwei in judging this.
> 
> This is not the same as MPX, which did work even though nobody was
> probably using it.
> 
> So this series is correct and I will follow up with one for INTEL_PT;
> however, this begs the question of how the patches are being tested.
> 
My apologies for carelessness.

I've seen you patch for INTEL_PT. So am I going to resend these 2
patches and Cc qemu-stable? or simply reply these 2 patches adding
qemu-stable in Cc list?

> Paolo