Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Alok Kataria wrote: > > No, we're not getting anywhere. This is an outright broken idea. The > space is too small to be able to chop up in this way, and the number of > vendors too large to be able to do it without having a central oversight. > > The only way this can work is by having explicit positive identification > of each group of leaves with a signature. If there's a recognizable > signature, then you can inspect the rest of the group; if not, then you > can't. That way, you can avoid any leaf usage which doesn't conform to > this model, and you can also simultaneously support multiple hypervisor > ABIs. It also accommodates existing hypervisor use of this leaf space, > even if they currently use a fixed location within it. > > A concrete counter-proposal:
Mmm, cpuid bikeshedding :-) > The space 0x40000000-0x400000ff is reserved for hypervisor usage. > > This region is divided into 16 16-leaf blocks. Each block has the > structure: > > 0x400000x0: > eax: max used leaf within the leaf block (max 0x400000xf) Why even bother with this? It doesn't seem necessary in your proposal. Regards, Anthony Liguori _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
