On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 12:27:33 +0100 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05.02.2018 12:22, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > Looks sane on a z14. > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > > > > > > On 02/05/2018 11:29 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c > >> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c > >> @@ -2221,6 +2221,14 @@ void kvm_s390_get_host_cpu_model(S390CPUModel > >> *model, Error **errp) > >> return; > >> } > >> > >> + /* PTFF subfunctions might be indicated although kernel support > >> missing */ > >> + if (!test_bit(S390_FEAT_MULTIPLE_EPOCH, model->features)) { > >> + clear_bit(S390_FEAT_PTFF_QSIE, model->features); > >> + clear_bit(S390_FEAT_PTFF_QTOUE, model->features); > >> + clear_bit(S390_FEAT_PTFF_STOE, model->features); > >> + clear_bit(S390_FEAT_PTFF_STOUE, model->features); > >> + } > >> + > >> /* with cpu model support, CMM is only indicated if really available > >> */ > >> if (kvm_s390_cmma_available()) { > >> set_bit(S390_FEAT_CMM, model->features); > >> > > > > Do you also want to add something to check_consistency ? > > > > Right now the following user error > > -cpu z14,mepoch=off,mepochptff=on > > is accepted. > > On the other hand we also have no consistency checks for other subfunctions. > > > > Thought about that, but that implies that a CPU model runable now, will > not run without warnings. Especially if migrating. We could add such > checks if we would push this into stable. > So, adding this check for the z14 stuff would work iff pushed into stable - but for the other subfunctions the ship has already sailed?