On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 01:21:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 04/07/2013 13:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto: > > > I don't like that it requires a firmware change in order to use nested > > > VMX (at least for hypervisors that read the MSR). "Worse emulation" and > > > "better emulation + new firmware" are indistiguishable from the point of > > > view of anyone except the firmware. > > > > > > IMO there is no reason for a better emulation that no one would care > > > about _and_ could look like a regression when updating to a newer kernel. > > > > That is why now is the good time to do that since nested vmx is not > > widely used. When it will be widely used the change will be impossible > > to do for reason you age giving. So it is now or never. > > I think it is a can of worms. For example, should this be > conditionalized on running under QEMU? Under UEFI, TianoCore should be > doing it, not SeaBIOS. And for CoreBoot, should it be done by CoreBoot > or SeaBIOS? (How do people use KVM together with CoreBoot?) > This is not the first thing that firmware need to initialize. I let firmware guys fight over who is doing it, we just model HW. FWIW for Seabios patch would be trivial. > So I still prefer never... :) > This is a "can of worms" IMO. What we decide to init in KVM next to relieve firmware from its duty? This is "other hypervisor" way, in KVM we just model HW. -- Gleb. -- 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
