From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yang, Sheng" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: Report hardware virtualization features Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:46:30 +0800 Message-ID: <200806230946.31172.sheng.yang@intel.com> References: <200806191842.56275.sheng.yang@intel.com> <1214137094.31471.182.camel@localhost.localdomain> <485E43D1.80009@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dor.laor@qumranet.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:33962 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531AbYFWBqT (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:46:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <485E43D1.80009@qumranet.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sunday 22 June 2008 20:21:37 Avi Kivity wrote: > Dor Laor wrote: > >> Yes, this is definitely helpful. However, I think that users will > >> expect cpu flags under /proc/cpuinfo. > >> > >> Perhaps we should add a new line 'virt flags' to /proc/cpuinfo? I think > >> all the features are reported using msrs, so it can be done from > >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c without involving kvm at all. > > > > while I agree with Avi, it would be nice thought to see them on older > > kernels. At least sprinkle a printk message. > > Oh we'll certainly hack something for the external modules. Yeah, add a virt flags is more directly, and I think it's not hard to be accepted. I will do that. And as Dor said, I think we also need a relative elegant method for the modules. So maybe we can keep these patches? Without that bash script. :) -- Thanks Yang, Sheng