From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37587) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SPCWS-0000iM-5I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 08:49:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SPCWQ-0000Us-Eu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 08:49:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SPCWQ-0000Tt-7H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 08:49:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:49:39 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20120501124939.GA8176@redhat.com> References: <20120430144214.GA10237@redhat.com> <4F9FD953.7070809@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F9FD953.7070809@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: fix cpuid eax for kvm cpu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: davej@redhat.com, Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:38:43PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/30/2012 05:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > cpuid eax should return the max leaf so that > > guests can find out the valid range. > > This matches Xen et al. > > > > Tested using -cpu kvm64. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > --- > > target-i386/kvm.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/target-i386/kvm.c b/target-i386/kvm.c > > index e74a9e4..c097248 100644 > > --- a/target-i386/kvm.c > > +++ b/target-i386/kvm.c > > @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUX86State *env) > > c->function = KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE; > > if (!hyperv_enabled()) { > > memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); > > - c->eax = 0; > > + c->eax = KVM_CPUID_FEATURES; > > } else { > > memcpy(signature, "Microsoft Hv", 12); > > c->eax = HYPERV_CPUID_MIN; > > Should only change for -M 1.1+? I don't think we should: it's a bug fix and we don't try to be bug for bug compatible unless fixing the bug actually affects guest behaviour. > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function