On 01/08/2018 17:21, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:00 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 31/07/2018 14:57, tedheadster wrote:
This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is
On 01/08/2018 17:21, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:00 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 31/07/2018 14:57, tedheadster wrote:
This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:00 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 31/07/2018 14:57, tedheadster wrote:
> >>
> >> This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
> >> extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is safe.
> >>
> >> But it is also wrong, because
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:00 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 31/07/2018 14:57, tedheadster wrote:
> >>
> >> This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
> >> extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is safe.
> >>
> >> But it is also wrong, because
On 31/07/2018 14:57, tedheadster wrote:
>>
>> This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
>> extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is safe.
>>
>> But it is also wrong, because you can run a 32-bit kernel as a guest on
>> a 64-bit processor,
On 31/07/2018 14:57, tedheadster wrote:
>>
>> This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
>> extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is safe.
>>
>> But it is also wrong, because you can run a 32-bit kernel as a guest on
>> a 64-bit processor,
>
> This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
> extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is safe.
>
> But it is also wrong, because you can run a 32-bit kernel as a guest on
> a 64-bit processor, and then it should set X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL
>
> This shouldn't be necessary; for systems that don't have virtualization
> extensions, the comment explains why setting X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL is safe.
>
> But it is also wrong, because you can run a 32-bit kernel as a guest on
> a 64-bit processor, and then it should set X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL
On 30/07/2018 21:40, Matthew Whitehead wrote:
> early_init_amd() is called on all AMD processors, both 64 and 32 bit.
> Presently 32 bit processors get the X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL feature set, which
> they do not support. Add conditionals to restrict it to 64 bit processors.
This shouldn't be
On 30/07/2018 21:40, Matthew Whitehead wrote:
> early_init_amd() is called on all AMD processors, both 64 and 32 bit.
> Presently 32 bit processors get the X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL feature set, which
> they do not support. Add conditionals to restrict it to 64 bit processors.
This shouldn't be
early_init_amd() is called on all AMD processors, both 64 and 32 bit.
Presently 32 bit processors get the X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL feature set, which
they do not support. Add conditionals to restrict it to 64 bit processors.
Cc: Paolo Bonzini
Signed-off-by: Matthew Whitehead
---
early_init_amd() is called on all AMD processors, both 64 and 32 bit.
Presently 32 bit processors get the X86_FEATURE_VMMCALL feature set, which
they do not support. Add conditionals to restrict it to 64 bit processors.
Cc: Paolo Bonzini
Signed-off-by: Matthew Whitehead
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
