On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 16:20 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 28/06/2018 11:25, Robert Hoo wrote: > >>> + uint64_t pred_cmd; > >>> + uint64_t arch_capabilities; > >> What's the purpose of those CPUX86State fields, if the migration > >> sections were removed in v2? > >> > > Thanks Eduardo. Going to clean up in v3. Any more comments, regarding > > other patches? > > Yes - something like arch_capabilities must stay, as it will be filled > in with "CPUID-like" feature bits that are actually visible to the guest > via the MSR. > > However, I suggest adding it to the FeatureWord enum, since everything > that handles FeatureWord applies to this new kind of MSR as well. > Currently FeatureWord is only for CPUID leaves, but it doesn't have to > be like that. > I think this will be changing struct FeatureWordInfo, which is designed for cpuid enumerations. You must not want to do that. May I know more details about your thought?
And, if I implemented ARCH_CAPABILITIES-bits features in FeatureWord, then no necessity of having it in kvm_msr_entries, right? > Paolo
