From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LUSw2-0002hf-Ok
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:35:58 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LUSw2-0002hN-DQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:35:58 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58249 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LUSw1-0002hG-Vm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:35:58 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f20.google.com ([209.85.221.20]:59277)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@gmail.com>) id 1LUSw1-0001Yt-Kq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:35:57 -0500
Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so4257292qyk.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:35:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4988B39B.5050509@us.ibm.com>
References: <1233673454-14526-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
	<49889CEB.7060602@redhat.com>
	<5d6222a80902031200i5b46b536vd2a95089d48a098e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4988B39B.5050509@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 19:35:57 -0200
Message-ID: <5d6222a80902031335l41c90b98y36b0b0f76c6d8987@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] don't expose lm bit if kernel is not 64-bit
	capable.
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be better to use KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID for this (and similar).
>>>  uname() can lie, and in theory kvm can support x86_64 on i386 kernels
>>> (although patches to implement this would be rejected on cost/benefit and
>>> aesthetic concerns).
>>>
>>
>> I sent a patch that implements this last week, but anthony seemed to
>> be more inclined
>> towards this approach.
>>
>
> All I said was that if we used KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, we had to do
> something about save/restore since it can mask arbitrary things.
>
Then I misread you.

Who's the subject of your sentence, that can mask arbitrary things?
kvm.ko in its ioctl,
or save/restore?

-- 
Glauber  Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."