[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080916133239.GA17456@yantp.cn.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:32:40 +0800
From: Yan Li <elliot.li.tech@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Yan Li <elliot.li.tech@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joerg.roedel@....com,
rjmaomao@...il.com, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, nancydreaming@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] VMware detection support for x86 and x86-64
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 05:34:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> VMware may change the PCI ID at their will so I prefer checking the
>> DMI since it's easier.
>>
>> So if we ditched the official method we run the risk of some false
>> negatives. But checking the DMI manufacturer would be good enough.
>>
>
> If we get false negatives that is quite frankly their problem, not ours.
> If nothing else, we should be able to look for a host bridge with the
> VMWare vendor ID -- that should arguably be safer than DMI.
I found that in this situation we can't use PCI info. My intention to
do this is to fix the false warning from
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c (around L695). When booting a VMware
guest we got:
"WARNING: strange, CPU MTRRs all blank?"
For VMware guest this warning is false, just as that for a KVM guest.
This code is from mtrr_trim_uncached_memory(), and used by
setup_arch(), which is used far before PCI is ready.
Therefore I think we can only use DMI here. Any idea?
Thanks!
--
Li, Yan
"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the
individual who can labor in freedom."
- Albert Einstein, in Out of My Later Years (1950)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists