From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755220AbYIHPbc (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:31:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753699AbYIHPbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:31:23 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:59280 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753417AbYIHPbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:31:23 -0400 Message-ID: <48C54527.5040205@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:30:47 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Sheng Yang , Avi Kivity , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86: Add "virt flags" References: <12208705553277-git-send-email-sheng.yang@intel.com> <20080908140939.GH11993@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080908140939.GH11993@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > > hm, i think extending the already existing flags category sounds like a > better solution than the separate virtual CPU flags line in > /proc/cpuinfo. We already have self-invented flag entries (such as > X86_FEATURE_NOPL), and adding more for virtualization would be quite > natural to do, as long as it's reasonably close to the meaning of a 'CPU > feature'. > > Peter, what would be your preference? > It probably makes sense to separate these out as a separate word, especially if they come from the hardware in any reasonable way. But yes, adding them to the feature array makes sense. -hpa