>>> On 17.02.16 at 14:03, wrote:
> On 17/02/16 08:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.02.16 at 14:42, wrote:
>>> @@ -467,11 +420,8 @@ static void xc_cpuid_config_xsave(xc_interface *xch,
>>> regs[1] = 512 + 64; /* FP/SSE + XSAVE.HEADER */
>>> break;
>>> case 1: /* leaf 1 */
On 17/02/16 08:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.02.16 at 14:42, wrote:
>> @@ -467,11 +420,8 @@ static void xc_cpuid_config_xsave(xc_interface *xch,
>> regs[1] = 512 + 64; /* FP/SSE + XSAVE.HEADER */
>> break;
>> case 1: /* leaf 1 */
>> -regs[0] &= (XSAVEOPT | XSAVEC
>>> On 05.02.16 at 14:42, wrote:
> @@ -467,11 +420,8 @@ static void xc_cpuid_config_xsave(xc_interface *xch,
> regs[1] = 512 + 64; /* FP/SSE + XSAVE.HEADER */
> break;
> case 1: /* leaf 1 */
> -regs[0] &= (XSAVEOPT | XSAVEC | XGETBV1 | XSAVES);
> -if ( !info-
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:42:22PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> It is conceptually wrong to base a VM's featureset on the features visible to
> the toolstack which happens to construct it.
>
Agreed.
> Instead, the featureset used is either an explicit one passed by the
> toolstack, or the defau
It is conceptually wrong to base a VM's featureset on the features visible to
the toolstack which happens to construct it.
Instead, the featureset used is either an explicit one passed by the
toolstack, or the default which Xen believes it can give to the guest.
Collect all the feature manipulati
