From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KvES8-0003eK-6n for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:03:28 +0000 Message-ID: <4908975A.7050900@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:03:22 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump References: <4904676F.3020706@redhat.com> <490487C1.1010707@redhat.com> <20081026213927.GF23893@blackpad> <49058645.9010005@redhat.com> <20081027122808.GH23893@blackpad> <4905C9ED.807@redhat.com> <20081028194530.GK23893@blackpad> <49082FD0.3040009@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrew Morton , Eduardo Habkost , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, Haren Myneni , Simon Horman , Vivek Goyal Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Most of the reason I was wondering is that the cpu hardware probing > largely seems to be a duplicate of what we have in the core for > probing cpu capabilities already, and could likely be made smaller > by building upon the existing codebase. > > We use the core cpuid functions, or are you referring to something else? >> svm can writeback into memory at odd times if we don't do this, and the cost is >> small - clear a bit in EFER. There's no reason to be lazy. >> > > Especially if we can clear that bit unconditionally (when > EFER is present) I'm all for it. > That is the case. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm: disable virtualization on kdump Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:03:22 +0200 Message-ID: <4908975A.7050900@redhat.com> References: <4904676F.3020706@redhat.com> <490487C1.1010707@redhat.com> <20081026213927.GF23893@blackpad> <49058645.9010005@redhat.com> <20081027122808.GH23893@blackpad> <4905C9ED.807@redhat.com> <20081028194530.GK23893@blackpad> <49082FD0.3040009@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eduardo Habkost , Simon Horman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , Haren Myneni To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34926 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752538AbYJ2RDe (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:03:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Most of the reason I was wondering is that the cpu hardware probing > largely seems to be a duplicate of what we have in the core for > probing cpu capabilities already, and could likely be made smaller > by building upon the existing codebase. > > We use the core cpuid functions, or are you referring to something else? >> svm can writeback into memory at odd times if we don't do this, and the cost is >> small - clear a bit in EFER. There's no reason to be lazy. >> > > Especially if we can clear that bit unconditionally (when > EFER is present) I'm all for it. > That is the case. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function