On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:17:30 +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 14:41:38 +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > Our current detection code uses just the number of CPU features which
> > need to be added/removed from the CPU model to fully describe the CPUID
> > data. The smallest number wins. But this may sometimes generate wrong
> > results as one can see from the fixed test cases. This patch modifies
> > the algorithm to prefer the CPU model with matching signature even if
> > this model results in a longer list of additional features.
...
> > +/* Mask out irrelevant bits (R and Step) from processor signature. */
> > +#define SIGNATURE_MASK 0x0fff3ff0
>
> This mask is not removing bits 12 and 13 corresponding to the processor
> type, but we don't take them into account in our code. If that's
> intentional please note it in the comment
Yes, it's intentional.
> > +
> > +static uint32_t
> > +x86DataToSignature(const virCPUx86Data *data)
> > +{
> > + virCPUx86CPUID leaf1 = { .eax_in = 0x1 };
> > + virCPUx86CPUID *cpuid;
> > +
> > + if (!(cpuid = x86DataCpuid(data, &leaf1)))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + return cpuid->eax & SIGNATURE_MASK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
>
> > @@ -1093,6 +1164,34 @@ x86ModelParse(xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt,
> > goto error;
> > }
> >
> > + if (virXPathBoolean("boolean(./signature)", ctxt)) {
> > + unsigned int sigFamily = 0;
> > + unsigned int sigModel = 0;
> > + int rc;
> > +
> > + rc = virXPathUInt("string(./signature/@family)", ctxt, &sigFamily);
> > + if (rc < 0) {
> > + if (rc == -2 || (rc == 0 && !sigFamily)) {
>
> Second part of the condition is a contradiction. Could you please
> clarify your intent here?
Heh, I guess I should be more careful when reusing patches I hacked up a
year ago :-)
See v2.
Jirka
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list