On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:16:00PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 06.06.14 04:37, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:21:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:26:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> >
> >On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
> >>for it:
> >>"allow-emulation". We don't want any emulated fe
On 06.06.14 04:37, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:21:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl
to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along thos
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:21:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl
> > to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along those lines? The name
> > is just a reall
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl
> to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along those lines? The name
> is just a really really bad pick.
What do you mean, a "bad pick" :-P? I added extra car
On 05.06.14 19:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:58:17PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using "-cpu somethingThatHasAVX", though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the oth
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:45:06PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 01:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:12:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> In the meantime, we could:
> >>
> >> * Include the less fine-tuned "allow-emulation" (or
> >>"allow-experimenta
On 06/05/2014 01:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:12:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> In the meantime, we could:
>>
>> * Include the less fine-tuned "allow-emulation" (or
>>"allow-experimental-features") option, which is implemented by this
>>series, for peop
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:12:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> In the meantime, we could:
>
> * Include the less fine-tuned "allow-emulation" (or
>"allow-experimental-features") option, which is implemented by this
>series, for people who use "enforce" and/or don't care too much about
Sorry for replying to my own message, but I believe we can now summarize
a possible solution that makes everybody happy, and the plans for it:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 03:02:53PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:39:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 05/06/2014 19:19,
Sorry for following the discussion backwards, but I see now that you
started with a proposal that would cover both cases (the one you care
about, and the one I care about), make both of us happy, but it was lost
in favour of other suggestions I disagreed with:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:24:22PM +0
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:39:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/06/2014 19:19, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> >On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>
> What about:
>
> - letting "-cpu foo,+emulated
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:45:16PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 05.06.14 18:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >Il 05/06/2014 18:40, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> >>
> >>
> >> kvm_set_cpuid(cpuid);
> >>
> >>but enabling all experimental features inside KVM just because we want
> >>one or two of the
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:38:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/06/2014 19:17, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> >
> > If you don't want MONITOR/MWAIT you shouldn't be using a CPU model
> > containing MONITOR/MWAIT in the first place. If you use "-cpu
> > somethingWithMONITOR", that means you a
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:58:17PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>
> >>>
> >>>Only if you were using "-cpu somethingThatHasAVX", though, no?
> >>
> >>Yes. The same argument goes the other way around.
Il 05/06/2014 19:19, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
What about:
- letting "-cpu foo,+emulatedfeature" just work
- adding emulated=yes that blindly enables all emulated features
- maki
Il 05/06/2014 19:17, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
>
> If you don't want MONITOR/MWAIT you shouldn't be using a CPU model
> containing MONITOR/MWAIT in the first place. If you use "-cpu
> somethingWithMONITOR", that means you are already asking QEMU for a CPU
> with MONITOR. If you were not getting
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:40:25PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 05.06.14 18:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> >>
> >>On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>>This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
> >>>for it:
>
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> >>
> >>What about:
> >>
> >>- letting "-cpu foo,+emulatedfeature" just work
> >>
> >>- adding emulated=yes that blindly enables all emulated features
> >>
> >>- making "-cpu ...,check"
Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
What about:
- letting "-cpu foo,+emulatedfeature" just work
- adding emulated=yes that blindly enables all emulated features
- making "-cpu ...,check" prints a warning for emulated features
unless emulated=yes
How about we remove the emulated=
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using "-cpu somethingThatHasAVX", though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
emulation, do "allow-emulation" and suddenly I get MONITOR/MWAIT
emula
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using "-cpu somethingThatHasAVX", though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
emulation, do "allow-emulation" and suddenly I get MONITOR/MWAIT
emula
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using "-cpu somethingThatHasAVX", though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
emulation, do "allow-emulation" and suddenly I get MONITOR/MWAIT emulation.
What about:
- letting "-cpu foo,+e
On 05.06.14 18:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:40, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
kvm_set_cpuid(cpuid);
but enabling all experimental features inside KVM just because we want
one or two of them is very counter-intuitive. Imagine we'd introduce
emulation support for AVX. Suddenly allo
Il 05/06/2014 18:40, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
kvm_set_cpuid(cpuid);
but enabling all experimental features inside KVM just because we want
one or two of them is very counter-intuitive. Imagine we'd introduce
emulation support for AVX. Suddenly allow-emulation (which I'd need for
Mac OS X 1
On 05.06.14 18:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
for it:
"allow-emulation". We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by
accident,
so th
Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
for it:
"allow-emulation". We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by
accident,
so they will be enabled only if the user explic
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option for it:
"allow-emulation". We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by accident,
so they will be enabled only if the user explicitly wants to allow them.
So is this an all-or-
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option for it:
"allow-emulation". We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by accident,
so they will be enabled only if the user explicitly wants to allow them.
References to previous patch and discussions:
Message-Id: <1379
29 matches
Mail list logo
