> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 21:28, Alexey Suslikov wrote: > >> > >> While I see practical use, someone don't. I call this disagreement. There > >> is > >> no problem for me if somebody disagree with a plan I have. It's normal. > >> > >> Btw, Intel's doc I have found at > >> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/application-notes/processor-identification-cpuid-instruction-note.pdf > >> > >> > >> says "31 Not Used Always returns 0". > > > > In that case, there's no sense testing for it, because it's always 0. > > > > If it isn't 0, then it's not an amd64 computer and we don't support > > it. Trying to identify all the infinite machines we don't support is > > fruitless, imo, and perhaps not a path we should start down, because > > then people will expect us to detect why we don't run on *their* not > > supported computer. > > In practice, it is not zero. This is why my point was opposite: > > * if I see Hypervisor flag in dmesg, my (virtual) hardware is not guaranteed > to operate properly (which is not theoretically, but practically true, because > of crash we have).
Well, gee, it sure sounds like KVM is violating Intel's specification. We should not fix this.
