On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:26:03 +0100 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes: > > > >> > >> Please try reusing scratch CPU approach, see > >> kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features() > >> for an example. You will very likely end up with simpler series, > >> compared to reinventing wheel. > > > > Even if I do that (and I serioulsy doubt it's going to be easier than > > just adding two 'u64's, kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features() alone is 200 > > lines long) this is not going to give us what we need to distinguish > > between > > > > 'hv-passthrough,hv-evmcs' > > > > and > > > > 'hv-passthrough' > > > > when 'hv-evmcs' *is* supported by the host. When guest CPU lacks VMX we > > don't want to enable it unless it was requested explicitly (former but > > not the later). > > ... and if for whatever reason we decide that this is also bad/not > needed, I can just drop patches 16-18 from the series (leaving > 'hv-passthrough,hv-feature=off' problem to better times). that's also an option, we would need to make sure that hv-passthrough is mutually exclusive with ''all'' other hv- properties to avoid above combination being ever (mis)used.
