Responses inline Cameron Esfahani di...@apple.com
"We do what we must because we can." Aperture Science > On Apr 5, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Roman Bolshakov <r.bolsha...@yadro.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:16:04PM -0700, Cameron Esfahani wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Cameron Esfahani <di...@apple.com> >> --- >> target/i386/cpu.h | 2 ++ >> target/i386/hvf/hvf.c | 1 + >> target/i386/hvf/vmx.h | 15 ++++++++------- >> target/i386/hvf/x86.c | 6 +++--- >> target/i386/hvf/x86.h | 34 ---------------------------------- >> target/i386/hvf/x86_mmu.c | 2 +- >> target/i386/hvf/x86_task.c | 3 ++- >> 7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) >> > > Hi Cameron, > > I'm sorry for delay. > > This is fun, I had very similar changeset I forgot to send quite a while > ago: > https://github.com/roolebo/qemu/commits/hvf-common-cr-constants > >> diff --git a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c >> index d72543dc31..fef1ee7d70 100644 >> --- a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c >> +++ b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c >> @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ void hvf_reset_vcpu(CPUState *cpu) { >> wvmcs(cpu->hvf_fd, VMCS_GUEST_PDPTE0 + i * 2, pdpte[i]); >> } >> >> + macvm_set_cr0(cpu->hvf_fd, CR0_CD_MASK | CR0_NW_MASK | CR0_ET_MASK); >> macvm_set_cr0(cpu->hvf_fd, 0x60000010); > > The second macvm_set_cr0() is a duplicate of the first one and should be > dropped. > I'll fix it in next patch update, pending feedback from next issue. >> >> wvmcs(cpu->hvf_fd, VMCS_CR4_MASK, CR4_VMXE_MASK); >> diff --git a/target/i386/hvf/vmx.h b/target/i386/hvf/vmx.h >> index 03d2c79b9c..8ec2e6414e 100644 >> --- a/target/i386/hvf/vmx.h >> +++ b/target/i386/hvf/vmx.h >> @@ -138,17 +139,17 @@ static inline void macvm_set_cr0(hv_vcpuid_t vcpu, >> uint64_t cr0) >> wvmcs(vcpu, VMCS_CR0_SHADOW, cr0); >> >> if (efer & MSR_EFER_LME) { >> - if (!(old_cr0 & CR0_PG) && (cr0 & CR0_PG)) { >> + if (!(old_cr0 & CR0_PG_MASK) && (cr0 & CR0_PG_MASK)) { >> enter_long_mode(vcpu, cr0, efer); >> } >> - if (/*(old_cr0 & CR0_PG) &&*/ !(cr0 & CR0_PG)) { >> + if (!(cr0 & CR0_PG_MASK)) { > > IMO the patch should only change CR0_PG to CR0_PG_MASK without removal > of the commented condition. > > In the next patch you're improving how long mode exit is done and > replacement of the comment with an implementation fits better there. > The reason I removed that code was because checkpatch.pl scolded me for a patch with code commented out. I assumed that I'd get a similar warning from patchew.org about some erroneous coding styles. So I thought the easiest thing would be to remove that code as well. But I'll defer to you or Paolo: should I remove that commented code with this patch? >> exit_long_mode(vcpu, cr0, efer); >> } >> } >> >> /* Filter new CR0 after we are finished examining it above. */ >> - cr0 = (cr0 & ~(mask & ~CR0_PG)); >> - wvmcs(vcpu, VMCS_GUEST_CR0, cr0 | CR0_NE | CR0_ET); >> + cr0 = (cr0 & ~(mask & ~CR0_PG_MASK)); >> + wvmcs(vcpu, VMCS_GUEST_CR0, cr0 | CR0_NE_MASK | CR0_ET_MASK); >> >> hv_vcpu_invalidate_tlb(vcpu); >> hv_vcpu_flush(vcpu); >> -- >> 2.24.0 >> > > Best regards, > Roman
