From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NV6XL-0008Jr-Bo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:57:39 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NV6XE-0008Hx-Ob for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:57:37 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46525 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NV6XE-0008Hs-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:57:32 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:8507) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NV6XD-0005AG-G0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:57:32 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NV6X8-0001pD-F5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:57:26 -0500 Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so3115489qyk.4 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:57:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B4DFB6F.3010804@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:57:19 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3] Add KVM paravirt cpuid leaf References: <20100107124449.GY4905@redhat.com> <20100107162427.GF4905@redhat.com> <20100113132506.GY7549@redhat.com> <4B4DEF4D.9080101@codemonkey.ws> <20100113161454.GN7549@redhat.com> <20100113162332.GO7549@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100113162332.GO7549@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gleb Natapov Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, avi@redhat.com On 01/13/2010 10:23 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Or do you mean making so that PV leaf will be available via > cpu_x86_cpuid()? This make sense, but lets do it after merging this > code path with qemu-kvm and the proposed patch brings qemu and > qemu-kvm close together. > Yes, that's what I meant, and yes, I think that's a fine approach. Regards, Anthony Liguori