On 30.10.2024 13:03, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Oct 30, 2024 at 6:37 AM GMT, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.10.2024 21:30, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 21/10/2024 4:45 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>> @@ -310,19 +309,16 @@ void guest_cpuid(const struct vcpu *v, uint32_t leaf,
>>>> break;
>>>>
>>>> case 0xb:
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * In principle, this leaf is Intel-only. In practice, it is
>>>> tightly
>>>> - * coupled with x2apic, and we offer an x2apic-capable APIC
>>>> emulation
>>>> - * to guests on AMD hardware as well.
>>>> - *
>>>> - * TODO: Rework topology logic.
>>>> - */
>>>> if ( p->basic.x2apic )
>>>> {
>>>> *(uint8_t *)&res->c = subleaf;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Fix the x2APIC identifier. */
>>>> - res->d = v->vcpu_id * 2;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Fix the x2APIC identifier. The PV side is nonsensical, but
>>>> + * we've always shown it like this so it's kept for compat.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> In hindsight I should changed "Fix the x2APIC identifier." when I
>>> reworked this logic, but oh well - better late than never.
>>>
>>> /* The x2APIC_ID is per-vCPU, and fixed irrespective of the requested
>>> subleaf. */
>>
>> Can we perhaps avoid "fix" in this comment? "Adjusted", "overwritten", or
>> some such ought to do, without carrying a hint towards some bug somewhere.
>
> I understood "fix" there as "pin" rather than "unbreak".
Oh, right - that possible meaning escaped me.
Jan
