On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 01:49:49PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Instead of silently clearing mcg_cap bits when the host doesn't
> support them, print a warning when doing that.
Why the host? Why would we want there to be any relation between the MCA
capabilities of the host and what qemu is
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 05:45:20PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/11/2015 16:49, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Instead of silently clearing mcg_cap bits when the host doesn't
> > support them, print a warning when doing that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost
> > ---
On 25/11/2015 18:29, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > +unsupported_caps = env->mcg_cap & ~(mcg_cap |
>>> > > MCG_CAP_BANKS_MASK);
>>> > > +if (unsupported_caps) {
>>> > > +error_report("warning: Unsupported MCG_CAP bits: 0x%"
>>> > > PRIx64 "\n",
>> >
>> >
On 25/11/2015 16:49, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Instead of silently clearing mcg_cap bits when the host doesn't
> support them, print a warning when doing that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost
> ---
> target-i386/kvm.c | 8 +++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1
On 25/11/2015 18:21, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Instead of silently clearing mcg_cap bits when the host doesn't
>> > support them, print a warning when doing that.
> Why the host? Why would we want there to be any relation between the MCA
> capabilities of the host and what qemu is emulating?
He
Instead of silently clearing mcg_cap bits when the host doesn't
support them, print a warning when doing that.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost
---
target-i386/kvm.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target-i386/kvm.c
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:29:25PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/11/2015 18:21, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> Instead of silently clearing mcg_cap bits when the host doesn't
> >> > support them, print a warning when doing that.
> > Why the host? Why would we want there to be any relation