Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> > What I can say is that we (including the H/W teams) reviewed it
internally.
> >
>
> I've switched to using CPUID. I noticed that Xen also uses
0x40001
> so I'm presuming that that is okay too?
Yes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
Jun
--
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>>> I think we should use the CPUID instruction (leaf 0x4000) to
>>>
> detect
>
>>> the hypervosor as
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2007 12:11:16 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> yeah. I suspect printing that it's executing in native mode is OK.
>>
>
> But only a single printk for that please
>
This will be taken care of in the next round of patches.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> -Andi
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:40 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 31 May 2007 12:11:16 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> + if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_KVM_API_MAGIC, __pa(para_state), 0)) {
>> +
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:40 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2007 12:11:16 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > > + if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_KVM_API_MAGIC, __pa(para_state), 0)) {
> > > > > + printk(KERN_INFO "KVM guest:
On Thursday 31 May 2007 12:11:16 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > > + if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_KVM_API_MAGIC, __pa(para_state), 0)) {
> > > > + printk(KERN_INFO "KVM guest: WRMSR probe failed.\n");
> > > > + return -ENOENT;
>
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > + if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_KVM_API_MAGIC, __pa(para_state), 0)) {
> > > + printk(KERN_INFO "KVM guest: WRMSR probe failed.\n");
> > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > + }
> >
> > How about printk(KERN_INFO "I am not a KVM
> > + if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_KVM_API_MAGIC, __pa(para_state), 0)) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "KVM guest: WRMSR probe failed.\n");
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > + }
>
> How about printk(KERN_INFO "I am not a KVM guest\n");?
Actually paravirt probes that fail should b
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Two versions, size *and* ret? This seems like overkill...
>
>
I think we ought to move away from version numbers and use feature
availability flags instead.
>> + if (rc) {
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "paravirt KVM unavailable\n");
>>
>
> Double-print
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 09:52 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> This patch adds the basic infrastructure for paravirtualizing a KVM
>> guest.
>>
>
> Hi Anthony!
>
> Nice patch, comments below.
>
>
>> Discovery of running under KVM is done by sharing a page of
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 09:52 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> This patch adds the basic infrastructure for paravirtualizing a KVM
> guest.
Hi Anthony!
Nice patch, comments below.
> Discovery of running under KVM is done by sharing a page of memory
> between
> the guest and host (initially
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Anthony Liguori
> > >
> >
> > I think we should use the CPUID instruction (leaf 0x4000) to
detect
> > the hypervosor as we are doing in Xen.
> >
>
> Is that leaf reserved for such use b
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>
> I think we should use the CPUID instruction (leaf 0x4000) to detect
> the hypervosor as we are doing in Xen.
>
Is that leaf reserved for such use by Intel?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> Jun
> -
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
I think we should use the CPUID instruction (leaf 0x4000) to detect
the hypervosor as we are doing in Xen.
Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center
-
This SF.net
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Subject: [PATCH] Add KVM paravirt_ops implementation
From: Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch adds the basic infrastructure for paravirtualizing a KVM guest.
Discovery of running under KVM is done by sharing a page of memory between
the guest and host (initia
15 matches
Mail list logo
