AMD k10 includes support for the FFXSR feature, which leaves out
XMM registers on FXSAVE/FXSAVE when the EFER_FFXSR bit is set in
EFER.
This patchset enables support for the FFXSR feature in KVM, allowing
the VM to set the bit in EFER when the physical CPU and the guest's
CPUID allow it.
AMD K10 CPUs implement the FFXSR feature that gets enabled using
EFER. Let's check if the virtual CPU description includes that
CPUID feature bit and allow enabling it then.
This is required for Windows Server 2008 in Hyper-V mode.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de
---
AMD k10 includes support for the FFXSR feature, which leaves out
XMM registers on FXSAVE/FXSAVE when the EFER_FFXSR bit is set in
EFER.
The CPUID feature bit exists already, but the EFER bit is missing
currently, so this patch adds it to the list of known EFER bits.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf
The FFXSR feature depends on some defines that were only recently
included, so let's expose them manually when building an external
module.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de
---
kernel/x86/external-module-compat.h |9 +
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 14:08:02 Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Rusty,
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 13:00 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Saturday 17 January 2009 07:43:34 Alex Williamson wrote:
As with most real hardware, unicast addresses have priority in
the filter table so we can avoid
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 14:30:06 Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Rusty,
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 13:52 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Saturday 17 January 2009 07:43:23 Alex Williamson wrote:
+ return status ? -EFAULT : 0;
This is wrong. Currently this can't happen, right? But you put it in
Hello Wayne,
On (Tue) Jan 27 2009 [21:15:22], Wayne Feick wrote:
I recently saw the following:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_PCI_Device_Assignment
This looks like it might allow guests to access a firewire device. Can
anyone confirm or deny whether that will be the case?
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
-1 here ?
I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that
interrupt
was injected and for the case of edge triggered interrupt and
The release notes for KVM-55 indicate that it can run on 2.6.9 (ver 56
jumps to 2.6.17), so if I use KVM-55 modules and userspace it will run,
correct?
Thanks,
Cam
Majid Salame wrote:
You need a more recent kernel then 2.6.9 in order to detect the VT
feature on the processor which is
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:45 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
Hello Wayne,
On (Tue) Jan 27 2009 [21:15:22], Wayne Feick wrote:
I recently saw the following:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_PCI_Device_Assignment
This looks like it might allow guests to access a firewire device.
Hi Rusty,
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 21:15 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 14:08:02 Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Rusty,
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 13:00 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Saturday 17 January 2009 07:43:34 Alex Williamson wrote:
As with most real hardware,
Hi Wayne,
You should be looking for vmx flag in cpuinfo.
Your CPU should support it, so You should be fine unless
it's disabled in BIOS.
BR
nik
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:05:36AM -0800, Wayne Feick wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:45 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
Hello Wayne,
On (Tue) Jan 27
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Nikola Ciprich extmaill...@linuxbox.cz wrote:
Hi Wayne,
You should be looking for vmx flag in cpuinfo.
Your CPU should support it, so You should be fine unless
it's disabled in BIOS.
BR
nik
No. vmx and vt-d are different things.
vmx is needed to run kvm,
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 23:35 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 14:30:06 Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Rusty,
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 13:52 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Saturday 17 January 2009 07:43:23 Alex Williamson wrote:
+ return status ? -EFAULT : 0;
This
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
-1 here ?
I think 1 is better here. For level=0 we always want to report that
interrupt
Hello,
with latest libvirt + small patch, I've finally managed to have save/restore
working again
(at least for kernels without paravirtualisation enabled), but I've noticed one
small glitch.
when vm is restored, the image is deleted, but kvm process keeps it opened, so
it's not really deleted.
(cc mailing lists)
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:16 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:20:16AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.01.2009, at 10:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:34:24 -0800 Randy Dunlap
randy.dun...@oracle.com
Hello,
excuse me for this little question. I found the
-vga vmware
option. I have tried any tricks I new to get the WinXP driver installed,
but failed. Is there some web address where to gather information on how
to use this option?
I downloaded the vmware-server-2.0, extracted it, took the
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Christian Roessner
christ...@roessner-net.com wrote:
Hello,
excuse me for this little question. I found the
-vga vmware
option. I have tried any tricks I new to get the WinXP driver installed,
hi,
i tried that too, but then found that somewhere it says
Hi Javier,
the vmware driver for windows isn't
supported.
thanks for your really fast answer. It´s a pity that is not supported :-(
Christian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Amit Shah wrote:
Hello Wayne,
On (Tue) Jan 27 2009 [21:15:22], Wayne Feick wrote:
I recently saw the following:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_PCI_Device_Assignment
This looks like it might allow guests to access a firewire device. Can
anyone confirm or deny whether that
On Thursday 29 January 2009 04:18:28 Alex Williamson wrote:
Hi Rusty,
Hi Alex,
I've cc'd Herbert: he always has good thoughts about this kind of thing and
I want to be sure you're getting a fair hearing.
Here's what I believe to be the parameters around which I've designed
the current
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:25:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
So, this conversation has convinced me that the host should
accept arbitrary filtering entries, and the guest should accept
that it is best effort.
I agree with this completely.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at
On Thursday 29 January 2009 05:32:21 Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 23:35 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 14:30:06 Alex Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 13:52 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
If we're sure they never want to see the value, then we
Wayne Feick wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:45 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
Hello Wayne,
On (Tue) Jan 27 2009 [21:15:22], Wayne Feick wrote:
I recently saw the following:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_PCI_Device_Assignment
This looks like it might allow guests to access a
I haven't been following this closely, so apologies if the point's been
made, or
if you're talking about unicast addresses here too, but just to be clear:
For multicasting, false positives are ok, false negatives are not
(non-functional),
and if the fixed-size address filter is exceeded,
26 matches
Mail list logo
