| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 01/13] Nested Virtualization: tools
Dong, Eddie wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User cegger
# Date 1283345869 -7200
tools: Add nestedhvm guest config option
diff -r 80ef08613ec2 -r ecec3d163efa tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
#define set_bit(idx, dst) ((dst) |= (1u << ((idx) & 31)))
#define DEF_MAX_BASE 0x0000000du
-#define DEF_MAX_EXT 0x80000008u
+#define DEF_MAX_EXT 0x8000000au
How can this make Intel CPU happy?
You may refer to my previous comments in V2.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is only a max boundary:
tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c:234
case 0x80000000:
if ( regs[0] > DEF_MAX_EXT )
regs[0] = DEF_MAX_EXT;
break;
So if an Intel CPU returns 0x80000008 here, this will be in the regs[0]
field and thus any higher value in DEF_MAX_EXT does not affect the
guest's CPUID response.
So as long as Intel CPUs don't return higher values which don't match
the AMD assignment (which is extremely unlikely), extending DEF_MAX_EXT
is fine.
Regards,
Andre.
--
Andre Przywara
AMD-OSRC (Dresden)
Tel: x29712
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home