On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:13:32PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:07:13PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 28/09/2016 17:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:07:13PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 28/09/2016 17:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as
On 28/09/2016 17:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as a blob, QEMU
marshals and unmarshals the registers out and back into the
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:09:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as a blob, QEMU
> > > marshals and unmarshals the registers out and back into the xsave data,
> > > so that unknown features are
On 28/09/2016 16:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote:\
> This can be fixed by adding actual property names to the
> FEAT_XSAVE_COMP_* bits. This way we will be able to report
> meaningful names to management in case GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID says a
> given xsave component is not supported yet, and will ensure we
On 28/09/2016 17:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Hmm, right. Even though XSAVE could be migrated as a blob, QEMU
> > marshals and unmarshals the registers out and back into the xsave data,
> > so that unknown features are indeed unmigratable.
> >
> > But are the property names necessary? It mak
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:01:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 28/09/2016 16:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote:\
> > This can be fixed by adding actual property names to the
> > FEAT_XSAVE_COMP_* bits. This way we will be able to report
> > meaningful names to management in case GET_SUPPORTED_CP
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:54:27AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 28/09/2016 07:31, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li
> >
> > Commit 96193c22a "target-i386: Move xsave component mask to features array"
> > leverages features array to handle XCR0 processor state component bits,
> > h
2016-09-28 15:54 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
[...]
> I think the right place to add the test is x86_cpu_get_migratable_flags.
I just sent out v2 to handle this, thanks for pointing out.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
On 28/09/2016 07:31, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li
>
> Commit 96193c22a "target-i386: Move xsave component mask to features array"
> leverages features array to handle XCR0 processor state component bits,
> however, it introduces a regression:
>
> warning: host doesn't support requeste
From: Wanpeng Li
Commit 96193c22a "target-i386: Move xsave component mask to features array"
leverages features array to handle XCR0 processor state component bits,
however, it introduces a regression:
warning: host doesn't support requested feature: CPUID.0DH:EAX [bit 0]
warning: host doesn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
