On 7/11/2020 12:48 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:45:49AM +0800, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
On 7/10/2020 6:12 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
I'm very sorry for taking so long to review this. Question
below:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:31:11PM +0800, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
Add some missing VMX features in Skylake-Server, Cascadelake-Server and
Icelake-Server CPU models based on the output of Paolo's script.
Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qi...@intel.com>
Why are you changing the v1 definition instead adding those new
features in a new version of the CPU model, just like you did in
patch 3/4?
I suppose these missing vmx features are not quite necessary for customers.
Just post it here to see if they are worth being added.
Adding a new version is reasonable. Is it appropriate to put all the missing
features in patch 1/4, 3/4, 4/4 in a same version?
Yes, it would be OK to add only one new version with all the new
features.
During the coding, I prefer to split the missing vmx features into a new
version of CPU model, because the vmx features depends on CPUID_EXT_VMX.
I think It would be better to distinguish it instead of enabling the vmx
transparently. i.e.
{
.version = 4,
.props = (PropValue[]) {
{ "sha-ni", "on" },
... ...
{ "model", "106" },
{ /* end of list */ }
},
},
{
.version = 5,
.props = (PropValue[]) {
{ "vmx", "on" },
{ "vmx-eptp-switching", "on" },
{ /* end of list */ }
},
},
What do you think about?
