Alok Kataria wrote:
No, that's always a terrible idea. Sure, its necessary to deal with
some backward-compatibility issues, but we should even consider a new
interface which assumes this kind of thing. We want properly enumerable
interfaces.
The reason we still have to do this is because, Microsoft has already
defined a CPUID format which is way different than what you or I are
proposing ( with the current case of 256 leafs being available). And I
doubt they would change the way they deal with it on their OS.
Any proposal that we go with, we will have to export different CPUID
interface from the hypervisor for the 2 OS in question.
So i think this is something that we anyways will have to do and not
worth binging about in the discussion.
No, that's a good hint that what "you and I" are proposing is utterly
broken and exactly underscores what I have been stressing about
noncompliant hypervisors.
All I have seen out of Microsoft only covers CPUID levels 0x40000000 as
an vendor identification leaf and 0x40000001 as a "hypervisor
identification leaf", but you might have access to other information.
This further underscores my belief that using 0x400000xx for anything
"standards-based" at all is utterly futile, and that this space should
be treated as vendor identification and the rest as vendor-specific.
Any hope of creating a standard that's actually usable needs to be
outside this space, e.g. in the 0x40SSSSxx space I proposed earlier.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
