>>> On 14.01.16 at 05:52, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/16 09:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 31.12.15 at 04:03, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -2003,6 +2011,10 @@ static struct hvm_function_table __initdata
> vmx_function_table = {
>> > .altp2m_vcpu_update_vmfunc_ve = vmx_vcpu_update_vmfunc_ve,
>> > .altp2m_vcpu_emulate_ve = vmx_vcpu_emulate_ve,
>> > .altp2m_vcpu_emulate_vmfunc = vmx_vcpu_emulate_vmfunc,
>> > + .default_tsc_scaling_ratio = VMX_TSC_MULTIPLIER_DEFAULT,
>> > + .max_tsc_scaling_ratio = VMX_TSC_MULTIPLIER_MAX,
>> > + .tsc_scaling_ratio_frac_bits = 48,
>> > + .setup_tsc_scaling = vmx_setup_tsc_scaling,
>> > };
>> >
>> > /* Handle VT-d posted-interrupt when VCPU is running. */
>> > @@ -2107,6 +2119,9 @@ const struct hvm_function_table * __init
>> > start_vmx(void)
>> > && cpu_has_vmx_secondary_exec_control )
>> > vmx_function_table.pvh_supported = 1;
>> >
>> > + if ( cpu_has_vmx_tsc_scaling )
>> > + vmx_function_table.tsc_scaling_supported = 1;
>>
>> Do you actually still need this separate flag field? I.e. can't you
>> derive this from one of the other four fields?
>
> Yes, unless other four fields are set conditionally instead of being
> hardcoded in hvm_funcs.
Indeed I'd expect (at least one of) them to be set (or zapped)
conditionally, just like is being done for some other ones.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
