On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:50:20 +0100 Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > Am 20.02.2015 um 18:37 schrieb Michael Mueller <m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > > > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:57:52 +0100 > > Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> Because all CPUs we have in our list only expose 128 bits? > > > > Here a STFLE result on a EC12 GA2, already more than 128 bits... Is that > > model on the list? > > If that model has 3 elements, yes, the array should span 3. > > I hope it's in the list. Every model wecare about should be, no? > On my list? Yes! > > > > [mimu@p57lp59 s390xfac]$ ./s390xfac -b > > fac[0] = 0xfbfffffbfcfff840 > > fac[1] = 0xffde000000000000 > > fac[2] = 0x1800000000000000 > >> > >>> I want to have this independent from a future machine of the z/Arch. The > >>> kernel stores the > >>> full facility set, KVM does and there is no good reason for QEMU not to > >>> do. If other > >>> accelerators decide to just implement 64 or 128 bits of facilities that's > >>> ok... > >> > >> So you want to support CPUs that are not part of the list? > > > > The architecture at least defines more than 2 or 3. Do you want me to limit > > it to an arbitrary > > size?. Only in QEMU or also in the KVM interface? > > Only internally in QEMU. The kvm interface should definitely be as big as the > spec allows! Right, now we're on the same page again. That can be taken in consideration. ... Although it's just and optimization. :-) Michael > > Alex > > > > > Thanks > > Michael > > >
