On 11/28/2017 09:42 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Fair enough. Let's get rid of KVM_CAP_X86_GUEST_MWAIT altogether and > add a new capability without bit 16. But let's use just one. > >> What is the benefit of doing this with bitmasks as opposed to separate >> capabilities? > > The three capabilities are more or less all doing the same thing. > Perhaps it would make some sense to only leave PAUSE spin loops in > guest, but not HLT/MWAIT; but apart from that I think users would > probably enable all of them. So I think we should put in the > documentation that blindly passing the KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION result to > KVM_ENABLE_CAP is a valid thing to do when vCPUs are associated to > dedicated physical CPUs. I'll give that a shot for v2. Regards Jan
