From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] GET_EMULATED_CPUID support with "allow-emulation" option Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:21:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20140606012104.GA27257@pd.tnic> References: <1401984741-26882-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <539099B6.2090000@suse.de> <53909A41.1060800@redhat.com> <53909D79.1070609@suse.de> <53909E53.9050300@redhat.com> <53909E9C.6080009@suse.de> <5390A06A.9070200@redhat.com> <5390A1A9.40602@suse.de> <20140605174801.GQ17594@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <5390EE1A.9080503@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Eduardo Habkost , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Gabriel L. Somlo" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Michael Mueller , Christian Borntraeger , "Jason J. Herne" , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:50436 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751634AbaFFBYU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:24:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5390EE1A.9080503@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl > to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along those lines? The name > is just a really really bad pick. What do you mean, a "bad pick" :-P? I added extra care in naming that functionality what it is - bitfield in CPUID format of *emulated* features. Unsupported is wrong too - we do support them if we enable them explicitly. :-) How about GET_NOT_REALLY_FAST_BUT_STILL_NOT_FAST_ENOUGH_AS_IN_HW_FAST_CPUID? :-P -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --