From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/16] target-i386: Add cpu object access routines for Hypervisor level. Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:25:20 -0300 Message-ID: <20121009162520.GB12330@amt.cnet> References: <1348497138-2516-1-git-send-email-Don@CloudSwitch.com> <1348497138-2516-4-git-send-email-Don@CloudSwitch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de, peter.maydell@linaro.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws To: Don Slutz Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39252 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752178Ab2JIQeg (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:34:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348497138-2516-4-git-send-email-Don@CloudSwitch.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:32:05AM -0400, Don Slutz wrote: > These are modeled after x86_cpuid_get_xlevel and x86_cpuid_set_xlevel. > > Signed-off-by: Don Slutz > --- > target-i386/cpu.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c > index 25ca986..451de12 100644 > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c > @@ -1166,6 +1166,32 @@ static void x86_cpuid_set_tsc_freq(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque, > cpu->env.tsc_khz = value / 1000; > } > > +static void x86_cpuid_get_hv_level(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque, > + const char *name, Error **errp) > +{ > + X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(obj); > + > + visit_type_uint32(v, &cpu->env.cpuid_hv_level, name, errp); > +} > + > +static void x86_cpuid_set_hv_level(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque, > + const char *name, Error **errp) > +{ > + X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(obj); > + uint32_t value; > + > + visit_type_uint32(v, &value, name, errp); > + if (error_is_set(errp)) { > + return; > + } > + > + if (value != 0 && value < 0x40000000) { > + value += 0x40000000; > + } Whats the purpose of this? Adds ambiguity.