On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 05:06:28PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/03/2009 04:22 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:57:47PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 07/28/2009 11:05 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> >>>> use cpuid code from upstream. By doing that, we lose the following snippet >>>> in kvm_get_supported_cpuid(): >>>> >>>> ret |= 1<< 12; /* MTRR */ >>>> ret |= 1<< 16; /* PAT */ >>>> ret |= 1<< 7; /* MCE */ >>>> ret |= 1<< 14; /* MCA */ >>>> >>>> A quick search in mailing lists says this code is not really necessary, and we're >>>> keeping it just for backwards compatibility. This is not that important, because >>>> we'd lose it anyway in the golden day in which we totally merge with qemu. >>>> Anyway, if it do _is_ important, we can send a patch to qemu with it. >>>> >>>> >>> It is important. Please don't introduce regressions (if you do, >>> introduce them in separate patches). The procedure to drop such >>> workarounds for kernel bugs is to verify that major distros have the >>> kernel fixes in their supported kernels. >>> >> Since this was introduced to fix a bug that did not even existed in Windows, >> I can't see what you mean by "distro kernels" here. >> > > If qemu-kvm with this patch works on Fedora 10 (latest kernel) and the > equivalent opensuse and Ubuntu kernels, then we can safely remove the > bug workaround. If not, if we apply the patch we just cause users > needless pain. Again, since it was reported to fix a problem (that did not even existed in the first place) with Windows Vista, I don't really know why shouldn'it it work with any of the Linux guests (since they were not affected, to begin with) However, if you point me to a simple test case, I can definitely test it to make sure no weird condition is taking place. -- 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
