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 11:01:13 +0800 Message-ID: <200806231101.13399.sheng.yang@intel.com> References: <200806191842.56275.sheng.yang@intel.com> <200806230946.31172.sheng.yang@intel.com> <485F0D21.1000708@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]:47149 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752407AbYFWDBB (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:01:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <485F0D21.1000708@qumranet.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 23 June 2008 10:40:33 Avi Kivity wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > 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. > > Perhaps just adding to the standard flags line is best, since tools > already read it. I was thinking of it before, but later I think it's not very proper. 1. The standard flag covered upper level of cpu capability. 2. If we add virtual feature to standard flag, I am afraid it would grow too fast. So I prefer to add a new "virt flag". > > > 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. :) > > I'll just copy the code that finally makes it and put it in > kernel/external-module-compat.c. Patches would stop applying soon. You means the current patchset or patch for /proc/cpuinfo? :) -- Thanks Yang, Sheng