On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:10:13 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 19.06.20 12:05, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:56:49 +0200 > > David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>> For now this series covers just AMD SEV and POWER PEF. I'm hoping it > >>>>> can be extended to cover the Intel and s390 mechanisms as well, > >>>>> though. > >>>> > >>>> The only approach on s390x to not glue command line properties to the > >>>> cpu model would be to remove the CPU model feature and replace it by the > >>>> command line parameter. But that would, of course, be an incompatible break. > >>> > >>> Yuck. > >>> > >>> We still need to provide the cpu feature to the *guest* in any case, no? > >> > >> Yeah, but that could be wired up internally. Wouldn't consider it clean, > >> though (I second the "overengineered" above). > > > > Could an internally wired-up cpu feature be introspected? Also, what > > Nope. It would just be e.g., a "machine feature" indicated to the guest > via the STFL interface/instruction. I was tackling the introspect part > when asking David how to sense from upper layers. It would have to be > sense via a different interface as it would not longer be modeled as > part of CPU features in QEMU. > > > happens if new cpu features are introduced that have a dependency on or > > a conflict with this one? > > Conflict: bail out in QEMU when incompatible options are specified. > Dependency: warn and continue/fixup (e.g., mask off?) Masking off would likely be surprising to the user. > Not clean I think. I agree. Still unsure how to bring this new machine property and the cpu feature together. Would be great to have the same interface everywhere, but having two distinct command line objects depend on each other sucks. Automatically setting the feature bit if pv is supported complicates things further. (Is there any requirement that the machine object has been already set up before the cpu features are processed? Or the other way around?) Does this have any implications when probing with the 'none' machine?
