On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/11/18 19:44, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Although well-intentioned, keeping the KF() definition as a hint for
> > handling scattered CPUID features may be counter-productive. Simply
> > redefining the bit position only works for directly manipulating the
> > guest's CPUID leafs, e.g. it doesn't make guest_cpuid_has() magically
> > work. Taking an alternative approach, e.g. ensuring the bit position
> > is identical between the Linux-defined and hardware-defined features,
> > may be a simpler and/or more effective method of exposing scattered
> > features to the guest.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > index 7bcfa61375c0..fb2feaf78daf 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ u64 kvm_supported_xcr0(void)
> >
> > #define F(x) bit(X86_FEATURE_##x)
> >
> > -/* For scattered features from cpufeatures.h; we currently expose none */
> > -#define KF(x) bit(KVM_CPUID_BIT_##x)
> > -
> > int kvm_update_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *best;
> >
>
> Queued, thanks.
>
> Paolo
Looks like this never made it to kvm/queue.
