From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50553) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK2D5-0001PC-4h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:57:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK2Cw-000822-JX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:57:23 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]:53451) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WK2Cw-00081r-F3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:57:14 -0500 Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id m20so2266398qcx.24 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:57:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5312F252.4090809@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 09:56:50 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20140228185719.GJ17184@ERROL.INI.CMU.EDU> <20140228191425.GK17184@ERROL.INI.CMU.EDU> <5311F2BE.4060206@redhat.com> <20140302001707.GO17184@ERROL.INI.CMU.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20140302001707.GO17184@ERROL.INI.CMU.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: x86: report lapic version as 0x14 instead of 0x11 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Gabriel L. Somlo" Cc: agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , mst@redhat.com Il 02/03/2014 01:17, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto: > Although, on KVM, it's simply hardcoded to 0x14 rather than exposing to > the guest whatever the host CPU's apic version happens to be, or > trying to match it to the CPU model: > > > [somlo@foober kvm]$ grep -i version arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c > ... > /* 14 is the version for Xeon and Pentium 8.4.8*/ > #define APIC_VERSION (0x14UL | ((APIC_LVT_NUM - 1) << 16)) > ... > > > I'd honestly prefer to stick to 0x14 (because it's simple :) ) I'd also prefer that, because I like having the same for KVM and TCG, but I'm not sure it'd fly with others. :) > but if you're sure that's a bad idea, how about the struct x86_def_t > rather than qdev ? > > So far, only OS X seems to even care at all about the version... Andreas, Michael, what do you think? Paolo