Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:13:32PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:07:13PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 28/09/2016 17:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:07:13PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 28/09/2016 17:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On 28/09/2016 17:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote: Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as a blob, QEMU marshals and unmarshals the registers out and back into the

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as a blob, QEMU > > > marshals and unmarshals the registers out and back into the xsave data, > > > so that unknown features are

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On 28/09/2016 16:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote:\ > This can be fixed by adding actual property names to the > FEAT_XSAVE_COMP_* bits. This way we will be able to report > meaningful names to management in case GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID says a > given xsave component is not supported yet, and will ensure

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as a blob, QEMU > > marshals and unmarshals the registers out and back into the xsave data, > > so that unknown features are indeed unmigratable. > > > > But are the property names necessary? It

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:01:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 28/09/2016 16:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote:\ > > This can be fixed by adding actual property names to the > > FEAT_XSAVE_COMP_* bits. This way we will be able to report > > meaningful names to management in case

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:54:27AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 28/09/2016 07:31, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > From: Wanpeng Li > > > > Commit 96193c22a "target-i386: Move xsave component mask to features array" > > leverages features array to handle XCR0 processor

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

2016-09-28 15:54 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini : [...] > I think the right place to add the test is x86_cpu_get_migratable_flags. I just sent out v2 to handle this, thanks for pointing out. Regards, Wanpeng Li

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

On 28/09/2016 07:31, Wanpeng Li wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li > > Commit 96193c22a "target-i386: Move xsave component mask to features array" > leverages features array to handle XCR0 processor state component bits, > however, it introduces a regression: > > warning: host

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix losing XCR0 processor state component bits

From: Wanpeng Li Commit 96193c22a "target-i386: Move xsave component mask to features array" leverages features array to handle XCR0 processor state component bits, however, it introduces a regression: warning: host doesn't support requested feature: CPUID.0DH:EAX [bit