> Here I'm less certain what the best approach is. As you point out,
> there's an inconsistency that I agree should be fixed. I wonder however
> whether an approach similar to 3/6 for KVM only would be better? I.e.,
> have VMX as a sometimes-KVM-supported feature be listed in the model and
> filte
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:40:48PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 03.10.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > TCG doesn't support VMX, and nested VMX is not enabled by default on the
> > KVM kernel module.
> >
> > So, there's no reason to have VMX enabled by default on the core2duo and
> >
Am 03.10.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> TCG doesn't support VMX, and nested VMX is not enabled by default on the
> KVM kernel module.
>
> So, there's no reason to have VMX enabled by default on the core2duo and
> coreduo CPU models, today. Even the newer Intel CPU model definitions
> don
TCG doesn't support VMX, and nested VMX is not enabled by default on the
KVM kernel module.
So, there's no reason to have VMX enabled by default on the core2duo and
coreduo CPU models, today. Even the newer Intel CPU model definitions
don't have it enabled.
In this case, we need machine-type comp
