On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:45:21PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:01:10 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:29:02 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: [...]
+static void x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc, + strList **missing_feats) +{ + X86CPU *xc; + FeatureWord w; + Error *err = NULL; + strList **next = missing_feats; + + if (xcc->kvm_required && !kvm_enabled()) { + strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); + new->value = g_strdup("kvm");; + *missing_feats = new; + return; + } + + xc = X86_CPU(object_new(object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(xcc)))); + + x86_cpu_load_features(xc, &err); + if (err) { + /* Errors at x86_cpu_load_features should never happen, + * but in case it does, just report the model as not + * runnable at all using the "type" property. + */ + strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); + new->value = g_strdup("type"); + *next = new; + next = &new->next; + } + + x86_cpu_filter_features(xc); + + for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) { + uint32_t filtered = xc->filtered_features[w]; + int i; + for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) { + if (filtered & (1UL << i)) { + strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1); + new->value = g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i)); + *next = new; + next = &new->next; + } + } + } Shouldn't you add if (IS_AMD_CPU(env)) { fixup here, that realize does right after calling x86_cpu_filter_features()
What would it be useful for? The IS_AMD_CPU fixup runs after x86_cpu_filter_features() (so it doesn't affect filtered_features at all), and filtered_features is the only field used as input to build missing_feats. For completeness of features returned by query-cpu-definitions, I'd guess. So that returned cpu definitions would match actually created cpus.
For completeness of which query-cpu-definitions field, exactly? There's no field in the return value of query-cpu-definitions that would be affected by the AMD aliases. The AMD aliases don't affect runnability of the CPU model because they aren't included in the GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID check[1]. You would be right if we did return a copy of the low-level CPUID data that's seen by the guest, or if the AMD aliases were set up before x86_cpu_filter_features() (so they could affect filtered_features/unavailable-features), but that's not the case. [1] They aren't included in the GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID check because the existence of the AMD aliases depend only on the configured guest vendor ID, not on the host CPU. -- Eduardo