On 29.06.2013, at 19:48, Mian M. Hamayun wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2013 02:43 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 28.06.2013, at 14:11, Mian M. Hamayun wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h b/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
>>> index c614070..4df5292 100644
>>> --- a/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
>>> +++ b/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
>>> @@ -783,6 +783,7 @@ struct kvm_dirty_tlb {
>>> #define KVM_REG_IA64 0x3000000000000000ULL
>>> #define KVM_REG_ARM 0x4000000000000000ULL
>>> #define KVM_REG_S390 0x5000000000000000ULL
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM64 0x6000000000000000ULL
>>>
>>> #define KVM_REG_SIZE_SHIFT 52
>>> #define KVM_REG_SIZE_MASK 0x00f0000000000000ULL
>> This should be part of your header update patch.
> Just to make sure that we understand it correctly, do you mean that this macro definition should be moved to the arm64 specific header that we include in another patch series ? or keep this change in the same file and do it along with the header inclusion in a single patch ?
I'm saying you should generate the Linux header update from an upstream branch that includes this change.
>>> +#ifdef TARGET_AARCH64
>>> +int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *cs)
>>> +{
>>> + struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + /* Try initializing with Foundation Models */
>>> + init.target = KVM_ARM_TARGET_FOUNDATION_V8;
>>> + memset(init.features, 0, sizeof(init.features));
>>> + ret = kvm_vcpu_ioctl(cs, KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, &init);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + /* Retry initializing with Fast Models */
>>> + init.target = KVM_ARM_TARGET_AEM_V8;
>>> + ret = kvm_vcpu_ioctl(cs, KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, &init);
>> Not sure I understand this part. Do we have different CPU types for the different models? If so, they'd be different -cpu parameters, with -cpu host picking the same as the host's.
> KVM tool does a very similar thing, using a loop and tries to initialize supported processors types and gets done when it succeeds with anyone of them. We could include a similar implementation in the next revision.
Is there no way to evaluate what we're running on so that we can expose the same thing to the guest? It's what -cpu host does usually. Taking one by trial-and-error breaks cross-virtualization.
Alex
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
