On 02/08/2018 21:33, Peter Shier wrote:
>
>> > The Intel Haswell architecture has an EPT feature whereby the access &
>> > dirty bits in EPT entries are updated without taking a guest exit.
>>
>> Why would this be Haswell specific?
>>
>> Aside of that I don't see what this has to do with exits. Fr
Peter,
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Peter Shier wrote:
> Thank you Thomas. I missed what I think is your fundamental point
> regarding duplication created by this patch between CPU feature bits
> and KVM's consumption of the IA32_VMX_EPT_VPID_CAP MSR.
>
> Should all the features in this MSR be exposed via
Thank you Thomas. I missed what I think is your fundamental point
regarding duplication created by this patch between CPU feature bits
and KVM's consumption of the IA32_VMX_EPT_VPID_CAP MSR.
Should all the features in this MSR be exposed via CPU feature bits
and should KVM consume only from there
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Peter Shier wrote:
> Thank you Thomas. Wording issues understood and will post a new patch
> with updat
Thank you Thomas. Wording issues understood and will post a new patch
with updated subject.
Re goals: purpose is to expose feature bit with side effect of
"ept_ad" in /proc/cpuinfo and is not necessarily related to VMX code.
We are upstreaming some internal patches that we think would be
generally
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Peter Shier wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] proc: added ept_ad flag to /proc/cpuinfo
The 'proc:' prefix is misleading here. x86/cpufeatures is the right
choice. The /proc/cpuinfo display is a side effect.
Also please avoid 'added'. Changelogs should be written in imperative
mood.
6 matches
Mail list logo
