Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] target/i386: add missing vmx features for several CPU models

[Chenyi Qiang]

On 7/11/2020 12:48 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:45:49AM +0800, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
> > On 7/10/2020 6:12 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > I'm very sorry for taking so long to review this.  Question
> > > below:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:31:11PM +0800, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
> > > > Add some missing VMX features in Skylake-Server, Cascadelake-Server and
> > > > Icelake-Server CPU models based on the output of Paolo's script.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Why are you changing the v1 definition instead adding those new
> > > features in a new version of the CPU model, just like you did in
> > > patch 3/4?
> >
> > I suppose these missing vmx features are not quite necessary for customers.
> > Just post it here to see if they are worth being added.
> > Adding a new version is reasonable. Is it appropriate to put all the missing
> > features in patch 1/4, 3/4, 4/4 in a same version?
>
> Yes, it would be OK to add only one new version with all the new
> features.

During the coding, I prefer to split the missing vmx features into a new 
version of CPU model, because the vmx features depends on CPUID_EXT_VMX. 
I think It would be better to distinguish it instead of enabling the vmx 
transparently. i.e.
{
        .version = 4,
        .props = (PropValue[]) {
                { "sha-ni", "on" },
                ... ...
                { "model", "106" },
                { /* end of list */ }
        },
},
{
        .version = 5,
        .props = (PropValue[]) {
                { "vmx", "on" },
                { "vmx-eptp-switching", "on" },
                { /* end of list */ }
        },
},

What do you think about?