Hm... So if VFPv3 is not enabled in the host, disable VFP in KVM as well? We would have to require at least v3 from the host, otherwise we will have to add extra emulation to lie to the guest about the number of registers to the guest. Which would be a pity. But maybe depending on VFPv3 is not too much to ask for... I'll go ahead and give this a shot then. -Antonios On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty.russell at linaro.org>wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:51:23 +0200, Antonios Motakis < > a.motakis at virtualopensystems.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > So I had another look into vfp_hard_struct. The struct seems to be > > different depending on what version of VFP we have compiled the kernel to > > support (if at all), in particular the number of registers. I have > designed > > the current so it doesn't rely on the host's VFP support; in theory you > > would be able to run VFP guests without including any support in the host > > (similarly to how on PC you can run 64bit guests on 32bit hosts). > > Ah, yes, you can actually configure a kernel without VFP support. I > suppose in theory we should then prevent the guest from using VFP too, > in that case. > > But it's such a corner case, I'd not bother. Perhaps make it a struct > rather than an array + enum, but that's very minor. > > Cheers, > Rusty. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/attachments/20120725/c1a1f4d4/attachment.html
