[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96438d59a2bc05871ef68fca475fabf5@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:26:05 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org,
dianders@...omium.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] arm64: cpufeature: Add an overview comment for the
cpufeature framework
On 2020-04-16 15:59, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
[...]
> As you mentioned in the other response we could add information about
> the guest view, something like :
>
> - KVM exposes the sanitised value of the feature registers to the
> guests and is not affected by the FTR_VISIBLE. However,
> depending on the individual feature support in the hypervisor,
> some of the fields may be capped/limited.
Although in most cases, what KVM exposes is indeed a strict subset of
the host's features, there is a few corner cases where we expose
features
that do not necessarily exist on the host. For example ARMv8.5-GTG and
ARMv8.4-TTL get exposed by the NV patches even if they don't exist on
the
host, as KVM will actually emulate them.
Not a big deal, but I just wanted to outline that it isn't as clear-cut
as
it may seem...
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists