On 12/05/2016 14:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Item number 2 on the other hand means that it's okay to add Skylake CPU > > models without XSAVES. Because of the large number of kernels in the > > wild that block XSAVES, I'm inclined to do that. > > Agreed. Now, should we name the CPU model without XSAVES > "Skylake" or "Skylake-noXSAVES"? I'm inclined towards the latter, > to follow the same pattern we used for "Haswell-noTSX". Do we have a plan to add Skylake with XSAVES? I think no, so it should be fine to do .name = "Skylake", .features[FEATURE_XSAVE] = CPUID_XSAVE_XSAVEOPT | CPUID_XSAVE_XGETBV1 | CPUID_XSAVE_XSAVEC /* omitting CPUID_XSAVE_XSAVES because... */ Haswell-noTSX was added only because we already had a model with TSX. If we hadn't we probably would have had: - Haswell without TSX - Broadwell without TSX - Broadwell-EX with TSX (or something like that). Thanks, Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
