On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 19/10/18 19:22, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 19/10/2018 18:57, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> In practice, having fine grain control of all the features like would be
> >> excellent for testing purposes, because it allows you to boot two
>>> On 19.10.18 at 18:57, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed this most recently in the AVIC series from Janakarajan. The
> global svm_avic boolean was left off-by-default because it doesn't work
> with nested virt yet. The code in question was actually inherited from
> the VT-x side, and the general
On 19/10/18 19:22, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/10/2018 18:57, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> In practice, having fine grain control of all the features like would be
>> excellent for testing purposes, because it allows you to boot two
>> otherwise-identical VMs with one configuration difference between t
On 19/10/2018 18:57, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> In practice, having fine grain control of all the features like would be
> excellent for testing purposes, because it allows you to boot two
> otherwise-identical VMs with one configuration difference between them.
>
> In the spirit of the already in pro
Hello,
I noticed this most recently in the AVIC series from Janakarajan. The
global svm_avic boolean was left off-by-default because it doesn't work
with nested virt yet. The code in question was actually inherited from
the VT-x side, and the general problem is systemic with how Xen has been
dev
