Alex Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> Thanks for finding the right fix Gleb. This originally came about from
> an experiment in lazily mapping assigned device MMIO BARs. That's
> something I think might still have value for conserving memory slots,
> but now I have to be aware of this bug. Tha
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 17 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index 58cccb3..88579fa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
@@ -2001,17 +2001,8 @
Opcodes:
TEST
CMP
ADD
ADC
SUB
SBB
XOR
OR
AND
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 112 +++--
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/
We emulate arithmetic opcodes by executing a "similar" (same operation,
different operands) on the cpu. This ensures accurate emulation, esp. wrt.
eflags. However, the prologue and epilogue around the opcode is fairly long,
consisting of a switch (for the operand size) and code to load and save t
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index cdf7b97..9859df6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
#include "
The current arithmetic instruction emulation is fairly clumsy: after
decode, each instruction gets a switch (size), and for every size
we fetch the operands, prepare flags, emulate the instruction, then store
back the flags and operands.
This patchset simplifies things by moving everything into co
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 20
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index 9dfbd07..58cccb3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
@@ -3020,16 +3020,
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index 88579fa..8f650d7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
@@ -458,6 +458,17 @@ static void invalidat
Instead of disabling writeback via OP_NONE, just specify NoWrite.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index 9859df6..9dfbd07 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/x86
Fixes this build breakage:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_ras.c: In function ‘kvmppc_realmode_mc_power7’:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_ras.c:126:23: error: ‘struct paca_struct’ has no
member named ‘opal_mc_evt’
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_ras.c | 4
1 file chang
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 09:02:41AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:17:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:10:50PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > rmode_segment_valid() checks if segment descriptor can be used to enter
> > > vm86 mode. VMX spec
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:55:43PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 09:02:41AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:17:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:10:50PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > rmode_segment_valid() che
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:53PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Instead of disabling writeback via OP_NONE, just specify NoWrite.
>
> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 4
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> #define X2(x...) x, x
>> #define X3(x...) X2(x), x
>> @@ -1584,6 +1585,9 @@ static int writeback(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
>> {
>> int rc;
>>
>> + if (ctxt->d & NoWrite)
>> + return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
>> +
> Why n
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> #define X2(x...) x, x
> >> #define X3(x...) X2(x), x
> >> @@ -1584,6 +1585,9 @@ static int writeback(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
> >> {
> >> int rc;
> >>
> >> + i
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> >> #define X2(x...) x, x
>> >> #define X3(x...) X2(x), x
>> >> @@ -1584,6 +1585,9 @@ static int writeback(struct x86_emul
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> >> #define X2(x...) x, x
>>> >> #define X3(x...) X2(x), x
>>> >>
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:51:08PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> We emulate arithmetic opcodes by executing a "similar" (same operation,
> different operands) on the cpu. This ensures accurate emulation, esp. wrt.
> eflags. However, the prologue and epilogue around the opcode is fairly long,
> consi
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:24:20PM -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> On 12/20/2012 12:56 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
> > I installed the spice-guest-tools-0.2.exe, and set the VGA model to
> > "qxl" in virt-manager. I had to bcdedit -set loadoptions
> > DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS and bcdedit -set TESTSIGNING
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * fastop functions have a special calling convention:
>> + *
>> + * dst:[rdx]:rax (in/out)
> May be I miss something obvious but I do not see why rdx is here.
M
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * fastop functions have a special calling convention:
> >> + *
> >> + * dst:[rdx]:rax (in/o
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> +
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * fastop functions have a special c
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:07:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:07:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:18:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:07:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:18:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > No, I was just truing to make sure I am not missing something :)
>> > Wouldn't we have to have separate fastop() function to handle rax/rdx
>> > output instructions?
>>
>> No. A
27 matches
Mail list logo