Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 7/29/22 00:13, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> The only flaw in this is if KVM gets handed a CPUID model that enumerates support >> for 2025 (or whenever the next update comes) but not 2022. Hmm, though if Microsoft >> defines each new "version" as a full superset, then even that theoretical bug goes >> away. I'm happy to be optimistic for once and give this a shot. I definitely like >> that it makes it easier to see the deltas between versions. > > Okay, I have queued the series but I still haven't gone through all the > comments. The biggest problem with this version is the EFER.LMA problem on i386 discovered (and, thankfully, fixed in the suggested patch) by Sean. To address this and all other comment I'm going to put together a v5 on top of the current kvm/queue (as I don't yet see any of this stuff there). > So this will _not_ be in the 5.21 pull request. At first I thought you meant 5.20 but then I got the pun: 5.20 will likely become 6.0 and so 5.21 pull request will just never happen :-) -- Vitaly
