[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:26:10 +0000 |
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 15:11, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> It's interesting that on x86 we've got a longterm request to *add* cpu
> features to the stream to detect screwups caused by using mismatched
> CPUs; so it's not necessarily a bad idea to include it once you realise
> it's there.
I think we would want to do that by checking the ID registers,
not the legacy ad-hoc feature-flags word. In fact I think for
KVM at least we already perform the check on the ID registers,
in that the kernel will return an error if we pass it a value
for an ID register and it's not the value it should be.
I forget whether we try to check this for TCG (the mechanism
for handling sysreg migration there is different).
As a side note I suspect that the first two issues Aaron ran
into are TCG-only and don't affect KVM.
thanks
-- PMM
Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible, Aaron Lindsay, 2021/02/03
- Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2021/02/03
- Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2021/02/03
- Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible,
Peter Maydell <=
- Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible, Aaron Lindsay, 2021/02/03
- [PATCH] target/arm: Don't migrate CPUARMState.features, Aaron Lindsay, 2021/02/03
- Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Don't migrate CPUARMState.features, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2021/02/03
- Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Don't migrate CPUARMState.features, Andrew Jones, 2021/02/03
- Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Don't migrate CPUARMState.features, Peter Maydell, 2021/02/08
Re: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible, Aaron Lindsay, 2021/02/03