Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>>
>> All I have seen out of Microsoft only covers CPUID levels 0x40000000
>> as an vendor identification leaf and 0x40000001 as a "hypervisor
>> identification leaf", but you might have access to other information.
>
> No, it says "Leaf 0x40000001 as hypervisor vendor-neutral interface
> identification, which determines the semantics of leaves from 0x40000002
> through 0x400000FF." The Leaf 0x40000000 returns vendor identifier signature
> (i.e. hypervisor identification) and the hypervisor CPUID leaf range, as in
> the proposal.
>
In other words, 0x40000002+ is vendor-specific space, based on the
hypervisor specified in 0x40000001 (in theory); in practice both
0x40000000:0x40000001 since M$ seem to use clever identifiers as
"Hypervisor 1".
>> This further underscores my belief that using 0x400000xx for anything
>> "standards-based" at all is utterly futile, and that this space should
>> be treated as vendor identification and the rest as vendor-specific.
>> Any hope of creating a standard that's actually usable needs to be
>> outside this space, e.g. in the 0x40SSSSxx space I proposed earlier.
>
> Actually I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Are you saying using that
> 0x400000xx for anything "standards-based" is utterly futile because Microsoft
> said "the range is hypervisor vendor-neutral"? Or you were not sure what they
> meant there. If we are not clear, we can ask them.
>
What I'm saying is that Microsoft is effectively squatting on the
0x400000xx space with their definition. As written, it's not even clear
that it will remain consistent between *their own* hypervisors, even
less anyone else's.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
