On Monday 23 June 2008 10:40:33 Avi Kivity wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > On Sunday 22 June 2008 20:21:37 Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Dor Laor wrote: > >>>> Yes, this is definitely helpful. However, I think that users will > >>>> expect cpu flags under /proc/cpuinfo. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps we should add a new line 'virt flags' to /proc/cpuinfo? I > >>>> think all the features are reported using msrs, so it can be done from > >>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c without involving kvm at all. > >>> > >>> while I agree with Avi, it would be nice thought to see them on older > >>> kernels. At least sprinkle a printk message. > >> > >> Oh we'll certainly hack something for the external modules. > > > > Yeah, add a virt flags is more directly, and I think it's not hard to be > > accepted. I will do that. > > Perhaps just adding to the standard flags line is best, since tools > already read it.
I was thinking of it before, but later I think it's not very proper. 1. The standard flag covered upper level of cpu capability. 2. If we add virtual feature to standard flag, I am afraid it would grow too fast. So I prefer to add a new "virt flag". > > > And as Dor said, I think we also need a relative elegant method for the > > modules. So maybe we can keep these patches? Without that bash script. :) > > I'll just copy the code that finally makes it and put it in > kernel/external-module-compat.c. Patches would stop applying soon. You means the current patchset or patch for /proc/cpuinfo? :) -- Thanks Yang, Sheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
