On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 4/29/22 16:24, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > I don't love the divergent memslot behavior, but it's technically correct, so I > > can't really argue. Do we want to "officially" document the memslot behavior? > > > > I don't know what you mean by officially document, Something in kvm/api.rst under KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION. > but at least I have relied on it to test KVM's MAXPHYADDR=52 cases before > such hardware existed. :) Ah, that's a very good reason to support this for shadow paging. Maybe throw something about testing in the changelog? Without considering the testing angle, it looks like KVM supports max=52 for !TDP just because it can, because practically speaking there's unlikely to be a use case for exposing that much memory to a guest when using shadow paging.
