On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 15:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 03/07/2018 13:07, Robert Hoo wrote: > >> FEAT_XSAVE_COMP_LO, /* CPUID[EAX=0xd,ECX=0].EAX */ > >> FEAT_XSAVE_COMP_HI, /* CPUID[EAX=0xd,ECX=0].EDX */ > >> + FEATURE_WORDS_NUM_CPUID, > >> + FEATURE_WORDS_FIRST_MSR = FEATURE_WORDS_NUM_CPUID, > >> + FEAT_MSR_ARCH_CAPABILITIES = FEATURE_WORDS_FIRST_MSR, > >> FEATURE_WORDS, > >> }; > >> > >> #define FEATURE_WORDS_NUM_MSRS (FEATURE_WORDS - \ > >> FEATURE_WORDS_FIRST_MSR) > >> > >> Then the existing loops that use FeatureWordInfo can go up to > >> FEATURE_WORDS_NUM_CPUID. > > Emm... Understand your point now. It is a little risky, all references > > to FEATURE_WORDS need to be updated carefully. > > OK, let me try to think in this way. > > Perhaps, I'll need to define a new 'struct FeautureWordMsrInfo' to > > describe feature words from MSR, in parallel to current FeatureWordInfo > > (or better rename it to FeatureWordCpuidInfo). > > Yes, probably. The plan seems fine. >
> > And, if I implemented ARCH_CAPABILITIES-bits features in FeatureWord, > > then no necessity of having it in kvm_msr_entries, right? > Hi Paolo, would you confirm this? I mean your previous patch "KVM: VMX: support MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES as a feature MSR" is not necessary now? > Paolo
