From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M6Si7-0007nr-6z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:02:39 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M6Si2-0007lX-9s
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:02:38 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39145 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M6Si2-0007lP-1A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:02:34 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43404)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gcosta@redhat.com>) id 1M6Si1-0004YZ-5u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:02:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:02:29 -0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH STABLE 0/3] Backport kvm cpuid feature
	trimming to stable
Message-ID: <20090519170229.GC16372@shell.devel.redhat.com>
References: <1242698221-32463-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
	<4A123D58.1060100@redhat.com>
	<5d6222a80905190736m416e3512m326be22cdc5dc77d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A12DBC5.3010506@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A12DBC5.3010506@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 07:18:13PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> (restored cc list)
> 
> Glauber Costa wrote:
> >On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >>Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>    
> >>>subject self explanatory
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>Right, so you have free space here to provide the motivation for the
> >>backport.  It's a large change and it isn't immediately obvious that it's
> >>stable branch material.
> >>
> >>    
> >
> >This does not introduce any new features.
> >Users expects the guest not to have any cpuid features that the host
> >cannot honnor. There has been multiple bug reports regarding this in
> >the past of Fedora users. I imagine other users have seen it too.
> >  
> 
> If it hits users then it's obviously important.  Note though that Mark 
> found some bugs there, so we need to either backport Mark's patches or 
> look for a simpler workaround.
I talked to mark , and I plan on backporting everything.