From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755035AbYIID3Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:29:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752207AbYIID27 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:28:59 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:47720 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752877AbYIID26 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:28:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,362,1217833200"; d="scan'208";a="437235843" From: "Yang, Sheng" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86: Add "virt flags" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:32:14 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: Ingo Molnar , Avi Kivity , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner References: <12208705553277-git-send-email-sheng.yang@intel.com> <48C54527.5040205@zytor.com> <48C55E0E.2090200@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <48C55E0E.2090200@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200809091132.14717.sheng.yang@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 09 September 2008 01:17:02 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> hm, i think extending the already existing flags category sounds like > >> a better solution than the separate virtual CPU flags line in > >> /proc/cpuinfo. We already have self-invented flag entries (such as > >> X86_FEATURE_NOPL), and adding more for virtualization would be quite > >> natural to do, as long as it's reasonably close to the meaning of a > >> 'CPU feature'. > >> > >> Peter, what would be your preference? > > > > It probably makes sense to separate these out as a separate word, > > especially if they come from the hardware in any reasonable way. But > > yes, adding them to the feature array makes sense. > > Just to clarify: > > I'm suggesting adding these to the existing feature flags array, in a > separate binary word. > Thanks! I will update the patch to add another category, and merge the array. -- regards Yang, Sheng > -hpa