On 18/06/20 10:57, Andrew Jones wrote: >> If it's a test that the feature is enabled (e.g. via -cpu) then I agree. >> For something that ends up as a KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION or KVM_ENABLE_CAP on >> the KVM fd, however, I think passing an AccelState is better. > I can live with that justification as long as we don't support > heterogeneous VCPU configurations. And, if that ever happens, then I > guess we'll be reworking a lot more than just the interface of these > cpu feature probes.
Yes, and anyway configuring "what is allowed" would be separate from checking "what is supported". Thanks,
