On Fri, 2018-12-21 at 07:27 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/12/18 13:50, Robert Hoo wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 13:38 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 20/12/18 01:18, Robert Hoo wrote: > > > > I think the sooner, the better. Take the time window that > > > > Icelake > > > > CPU > > > > model has just shipped with QEMU 3.1.0 and is not > > > > publicly/widely > > > > used > > > > yet. > > > > > > We should still leave it in the 3.1 machine types. I've just > > > sent a > > > patch to do the same with MPX. > > > > > > > I took a look your patch of "Disable MPX support on named CPU > > models". > > Seems you do the same as I do to PCONFIG. So you agree with my > > above > > patch?:-) > > > > I won't object that keep it in 3.1 machine type as you do to MPX. > > Sorry Robert, I changed my mind. If no hypervisor exists that > enables > PCONFIG for guests (using the PCONFIG_ENABLE processor control), > effectively no one can ever have used it. We should disable it in > all > machine types and Cc qemu-stable.
Thanks Paolo. > > In fact, the same is true for INTEL_PT, which is not supported by any > released kernel version and, even is going to be available only with > a > module parameter when it will be. Add Luwei in judging this. > > This is not the same as MPX, which did work even though nobody was > probably using it. > > So this series is correct and I will follow up with one for INTEL_PT; > however, this begs the question of how the patches are being tested. > My apologies for carelessness. I've seen you patch for INTEL_PT. So am I going to resend these 2 patches and Cc qemu-stable? or simply reply these 2 patches adding qemu-stable in Cc list? > Paolo