On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 12:37:11PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Use the host CPU model for the PCID tests to allow testing the various > > combinations of PCID and INVPCID enabled/disabled without having to > > manually change the kvm-unit-tests command line. I.e. give users the > > option of changing the command line *OR* running on a (virtual) CPU > > with or without PCID and/or INVPCID. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > x86/unittests.cfg | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/x86/unittests.cfg b/x86/unittests.cfg > > index aae1523..25f4535 100644 > > --- a/x86/unittests.cfg > > +++ b/x86/unittests.cfg > > @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ extra_params = --append "10000000 `date +%s`" > > > > [pcid] > > file = pcid.flat > > -extra_params = -cpu qemu64,+pcid > > +extra_params = -cpu host > > arch = x86_64 > > > > [rdpru] > > Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Actually, is there any reason for *not* using '-cpu host' in any of the > tests? Emulation tests, e.g. for UMIP, will want "-cpu <base>,+<feature>", but I can't think of any reason why <base> shouldn't be host.
