From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't try to mess with CPUID when running nested SVM
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:19:50 +0300
Message-ID: <4A0D4FD6.3040409@redhat.com>
References: <1242378078-1908-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1242378078-1908-2-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4A0D4D82.1030903@redhat.com> <69F72470-DF44-4BE1-87AF-9FEFF54B69E0@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, joerg.roedel@amd.com
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:55552 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751108AbZEOLTv (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 May 2009 07:19:51 -0400
In-Reply-To: <69F72470-DF44-4BE1-87AF-9FEFF54B69E0@suse.de>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> When using nested SVM we usually want the guest to see the exact 
>>> CPUID values
>>> we gave it and not some mangled ones.
>>>
>>
>> That would triggered by -cpu host, not nesting.
>
> Oh we have -cpu host already?

No, we don't :)

> hm - treating the hypervisor bit like any other cpuid bit sounds like 
> a good idea. I'm wondering though which way should be preferred. I 
> usually don't want to have the hypervisor bit set - but maybe I'm the 
> minority.
>

Windows requires the hypervisor bit to set in order to pass some testing 
program.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.