On 19/08/19 20:30, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> Perhaps there is another patch coming for reporting Intel bits on AMD?
>> I wasn't going to work on it but yes, they should be. This patch just
>> fixed what was half-implemented.
> I'm not sure that the original intent was to enumerate the AMD
> features
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 8:18 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 16/08/19 23:45, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >> The AMD_* bits have to be set from the vendor-independent
> >> feature and bug flags, because KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID does not care
>
On 16/08/19 23:45, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> The AMD_* bits have to be set from the vendor-independent
>> feature and bug flags, because KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID does not care
>> about the vendor and they should be set on Intel processors as
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> The AMD_* bits have to be set from the vendor-independent
> feature and bug flags, because KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID does not care
> about the vendor and they should be set on Intel processors as well.
> On top of this, SSBD, STIBP and
The AMD_* bits have to be set from the vendor-independent
feature and bug flags, because KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID does not care
about the vendor and they should be set on Intel processors as well.
On top of this, SSBD, STIBP and AMD_SSB_NO bit were not set, and
VIRT_SSBD does not have to be added
5 matches
Mail list logo
