On 05/27/2010 01:33 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
If we do that then xcr0 needs to be in a separate structure, say
kvm_xcr, with a flags field and reserved space of its own for future xcr
growth.
I meant to put it into sregs, but found it's already full... How about "extended
sregs"?
Isn't this what xcr means? xtended control register?
+static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
+ struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave)
+{
+ struct xsave_struct *xsave =&vcpu->arch.guest_fpu.state->xsave;
+
+ if (!cpu_has_xsave)
+ return;
Hm, it would be nice to make it backward compatible and return the
legacy fpu instead. I think the layouts are compatible?
Sound good. But seems we still need KVM_CAP_XSAVE to use this interface, and
other processors would still go FPU interface. Seems didn't improve much?
I would like the new interface to be used in all cases, this way we can
deprecate the old one in a few years.
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm.h b/include/linux/kvm.h
index 23ea022..5006761 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm.h
@@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ struct kvm_enable_cap {
#define KVM_CAP_PPC_OSI 52
#define KVM_CAP_PPC_UNSET_IRQ 53
#define KVM_CAP_ENABLE_CAP 54
+#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_XSAVE
+#define KVM_CAP_XSAVE 55
+#endif
Might make sense to have a separate KVM_CAP_XCR, just for consistency.
Maybe EXTENDED_SREGS? But still every future field in the struct need a CAP...
Might do
struct kvm_xcr {
__u32 xcr;
__u32 reserved;
__u64 value;
};
struct kvm_xcrs {
__u32 nr_xcrs;
__u32 flags;
struct kvm_xcr xcrs[KVM_MAX_XCRS];
... reserved;
};
which would allow new xcrs to be added easily.
You'll need to change kvm_set_xcr0() to kvm_set_xcr() for this to work
though.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
