From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNPT0-0006ZX-Lo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:28:51 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNPSy-0006Xc-Pm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:28:50 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52104 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LNPSy-0006XS-Jx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:28:48 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:60069) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LNPSy-00020e-2L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:28:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:58:57 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20090115102857.GA25534@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com> References: <1231951270-23664-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <496F07C1.6050605@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <496F07C1.6050605@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: v3: KVM: support for 'count' in CPUID functions 4, 0xb and 0xd Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:54:09AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Amit Shah wrote: >> These patches add support for cpuid functions that take a 'count' parameter >> in addition to the function number. With these patches, KVM can run a VM >> started with a newer CPU type (coreduo, core2duo). These patches also pave >> way for a "host" CPU type, where we could pass the CPU type of the current >> host to the VM. >> >> v3 uses the as-yet unused KVM_SET_CPUID2 interface, which was written to >> support this functionality. Since we rely on kernel versions 2.6.25 at a >> minimum for KVM and the SET_CPUID2 interface was introduced in 2.6.25, we're >> safe with this. > > Looks good. Note that function 2 also needs special treatment. Yes; I'll add that support as well. Thanks, Amit