On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:31:38AM +0800, Yang, Sheng wrote: > On Friday 27 June 2008 11:26:15 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > > From 54b1bb9fe5d2fe40fc047b43dd4e1a480d41a977 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > > 2001 From: Sheng Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:03:17 +0800 > > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: Add "virt flag" in /proc/cpuinfo > > > > > > The hardware virtualization technology evolves very fast. But > > > currently it's hard to tell if your CPU support a certain kind of > > > HW technology without dig into the source code. > > > > > > The patch add a new item under /proc/cpuinfo, named "virt flag". > > > The "virt flag" got the similar function as "flag". It is used to > > > indicate what features does this CPU supported. It don't cover > > > all features but only the important ones. > > > > A cpu feature is a cpu feature. I'd prefer to see all this in > > "flags:". > > > > J > > But I think (as I said before) > > 1. The standard flag covered upper level of cpu capability, they are > covered by CPUID. And virt flag was enabled by vmx/svm (we can leave > it blank also), and covered by MSR. It's very different. > > 2. If we add virtual feature to standard flag, I am afraid it would > grow too fast, though we just add some key feature to it. >
What about dumping the virtualisation flags to the kernel log when the vmx/svm module is loaded? Also do we have an idea of the number of flags that would appear on a current CPU? -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
