From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: nVMX: Don't advertise single context
 invalidation for invept
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:02:16 -0300
Message-ID: <20140411190216.GA18340@amt.cnet>
References: <1396299625-8285-1-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
 <1396299625-8285-2-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
 <20140410204738.GA28576@amt.cnet>
 <jpgioqghfr7.fsf@nelium.bos.redhat.com>
 <53478A15.9080903@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37299 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755107AbaDKTCk (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:02:40 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53478A15.9080903@siemens.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:22:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > But rethinking this again, I agree with you. If there's a hypervisor
> > with a  single context invept implmentation that does not fallback,
> > this will unfortunately not work. Jan, do you agree with this ?
> 
> A hypervisor that doesn't properly check the HW caps is just broken. And
> one that mandates single context invalidation support is silly.

Is this a justification for removing INVEPT single-context until it 
is implemented as single-context?