| Message ID | 20200103143224.49187-1-liq3ea@163.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | target/i386: kvm: print info when the kernel doesn't support ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) | expand |
On 1/3/20 3:32 PM, Li Qiang wrote: > The ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) is quite new. In old platform that Can you refer to the kernel version? "is quite new (introduced in vX.Y)" > doesn't support this ioctl will sometimes make the user confusion. For > example, when we do nested virtualiztion using host-passthrough model "virtualization" > the VM will has quite different cpu feature with the host. I'm not native English speaking but I'd use: "... will have quite different features than the host" > > Signed-off-by: Li Qiang <liq3ea@163.com> > --- > target/i386/kvm.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/target/i386/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm.c > index 0b511906e3..9688f7a167 100644 > --- a/target/i386/kvm.c > +++ b/target/i386/kvm.c > @@ -1916,6 +1916,8 @@ static int kvm_get_supported_feature_msrs(KVMState *s) > } > > if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES)) { > + info_report("ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) is " > + "not supported by this kernel."); Please remove the trailing '.' Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> > return 0; > } > >
On 03/01/20 15:32, Li Qiang wrote: > The ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) is quite new. In old platform that > doesn't support this ioctl will sometimes make the user confusion. For > example, when we do nested virtualiztion using host-passthrough model > the VM will has quite different cpu feature with the host. > > Signed-off-by: Li Qiang <liq3ea@163.com> > --- > target/i386/kvm.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/target/i386/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm.c > index 0b511906e3..9688f7a167 100644 > --- a/target/i386/kvm.c > +++ b/target/i386/kvm.c > @@ -1916,6 +1916,8 @@ static int kvm_get_supported_feature_msrs(KVMState *s) > } > > if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES)) { > + info_report("ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) is " > + "not supported by this kernel."); > return 0; > } Does this matter with host-passthrough? As long as "-cpu host,+vmx" works with an old kernel, there's no reason to warn---and even then the warning should: 1) be restricted to the nested case; 2) be emitted even if MSR features are supported but VMX MSRs are not. Paolo
diff --git a/target/i386/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm.c index 0b511906e3..9688f7a167 100644 --- a/target/i386/kvm.c +++ b/target/i386/kvm.c @@ -1916,6 +1916,8 @@ static int kvm_get_supported_feature_msrs(KVMState *s) } if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES)) { + info_report("ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) is " + "not supported by this kernel."); return 0; }
The ioctl(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES) is quite new. In old platform that doesn't support this ioctl will sometimes make the user confusion. For example, when we do nested virtualiztion using host-passthrough model the VM will has quite different cpu feature with the host. Signed-off-by: Li Qiang <liq3ea@163.com> --- target/i386/kvm.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)