On 06.06.14 04:37, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:21:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl
to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:26:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
for it:
allow-emulation. We don't want any emulated feature to be
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:16:00PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 06.06.14 04:37, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:21:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option for it:
allow-emulation. We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by accident,
so they will be enabled only if the user explicitly wants to allow them.
So is this an
Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
for it:
allow-emulation. We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by
accident,
so they will be enabled only if the user
On 05.06.14 18:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
for it:
allow-emulation. We don't want any emulated feature to be enabled by
accident,
so
Il 05/06/2014 18:40, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
kvm_set_cpuid(cpuid);
but enabling all experimental features inside KVM just because we want
one or two of them is very counter-intuitive. Imagine we'd introduce
emulation support for AVX. Suddenly allow-emulation (which I'd need for
Mac OS X
On 05.06.14 18:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:40, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
kvm_set_cpuid(cpuid);
but enabling all experimental features inside KVM just because we want
one or two of them is very counter-intuitive. Imagine we'd introduce
emulation support for AVX. Suddenly
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using -cpu somethingThatHasAVX, though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
emulation, do allow-emulation and suddenly I get MONITOR/MWAIT emulation.
What about:
- letting -cpu
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using -cpu somethingThatHasAVX, though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
emulation, do allow-emulation and suddenly I get MONITOR/MWAIT
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using -cpu somethingThatHasAVX, though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
emulation, do allow-emulation and suddenly I get MONITOR/MWAIT
Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
What about:
- letting -cpu foo,+emulatedfeature just work
- adding emulated=yes that blindly enables all emulated features
- making -cpu ...,check prints a warning for emulated features
unless emulated=yes
How about we remove the emulated=yes
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
What about:
- letting -cpu foo,+emulatedfeature just work
- adding emulated=yes that blindly enables all emulated features
- making -cpu ...,check prints a warning for
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:40:25PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05.06.14 18:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:24, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
On 05.06.14 18:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
This implements GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID support using an explicit option
for it:
allow-emulation.
Il 05/06/2014 19:17, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
If you don't want MONITOR/MWAIT you shouldn't be using a CPU model
containing MONITOR/MWAIT in the first place. If you use -cpu
somethingWithMONITOR, that means you are already asking QEMU for a CPU
with MONITOR. If you were not getting
Il 05/06/2014 19:19, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
What about:
- letting -cpu foo,+emulatedfeature just work
- adding emulated=yes that blindly enables all emulated features
-
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:58:17PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using -cpu somethingThatHasAVX, though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the other way around. I want to use AVX
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:38:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 19:17, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
If you don't want MONITOR/MWAIT you shouldn't be using a CPU model
containing MONITOR/MWAIT in the first place. If you use -cpu
somethingWithMONITOR, that means you are already
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:45:16PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05.06.14 18:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:40, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
kvm_set_cpuid(cpuid);
but enabling all experimental features inside KVM just because we want
one or two of them is very
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:39:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 19:19, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:54, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
What about:
- letting -cpu foo,+emulatedfeature just work
-
Sorry for following the discussion backwards, but I see now that you
started with a proposal that would cover both cases (the one you care
about, and the one I care about), make both of us happy, but it was lost
in favour of other suggestions I disagreed with:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:24:22PM
Sorry for replying to my own message, but I believe we can now summarize
a possible solution that makes everybody happy, and the plans for it:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 03:02:53PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:39:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 19:19,
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:12:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
In the meantime, we could:
* Include the less fine-tuned allow-emulation (or
allow-experimental-features) option, which is implemented by this
series, for people who use enforce and/or don't care too much about
On 06/05/2014 01:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:12:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
In the meantime, we could:
* Include the less fine-tuned allow-emulation (or
allow-experimental-features) option, which is implemented by this
series, for people who use
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:45:06PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/05/2014 01:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:12:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
In the meantime, we could:
* Include the less fine-tuned allow-emulation (or
allow-experimental-features)
On 05.06.14 19:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:58:17PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05.06.14 18:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 05/06/2014 18:45, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
Only if you were using -cpu somethingThatHasAVX, though, no?
Yes. The same argument goes the
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl
to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along those lines? The name
is just a really really bad pick.
What do you mean, a bad pick :-P? I added extra care in
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:21:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
But can we drop the EMULATED name somehow? Can we rename [1] the ioctl
to say GET_UNSUPPORTED_CPUID or something along those lines? The name
is just a really
28 matches
Mail list logo
