I ve seen that I ve accidentally dropped the list from the email..
So for fstps for the 32bit - how does this patch look?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
index a252081d..83b0fd2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
@@ -1139,6 +1139,27
On 12/05/2017 09:26, Miltiadis Hatzimihail wrote:
> I ve tried the same today using a 32-bit Guest OS and the illegal
> instruction this time is
>
> fstps %(ecx)
>
> Is it a similar case to the movss one? (the previous Guest I was using
> was 64 bit).
Yes, it is.
Paolo
> Also, I had to start
I ve tried the same today using a 32-bit Guest OS and the illegal
instruction this time is
fstps %(ecx)
Is it a similar case to the movss one? (the previous Guest I was using was
64 bit).
Also, I had to start QEMU using the following command line options:
qemu -cpu host,-sse2
because one my pr
Ok many thanks for your help.
Milton
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 11/05/2017 14:47, Miltiadis Hatzimihail wrote:
> > That's great thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > Is this patch going to make it to the mainline at some point?
>
> Not exactly as is, because
On 11/05/2017 14:47, Miltiadis Hatzimihail wrote:
> That's great thanks for the clarification.
>
> Is this patch going to make it to the mainline at some point?
Not exactly as is, because it has a small defect (it always reads 16
bytes from memory), but something like that will.
Paolo
That's great thanks for the clarification.
Is this patch going to make it to the mainline at some point?
Miltiadis Hatzimihail
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 11/05/2017 14:40, Miltiadis Hatzimihail wrote:
> > Thanks Paolo that worked!
> >
> > Btw, this line
>
On 11/05/2017 14:40, Miltiadis Hatzimihail wrote:
> Thanks Paolo that worked!
>
> Btw, this line
>
>
> + GP(SrcMem | DstReg | ModRM | Mov, &pfx_0f_10_0f_11),
> + GP(SrcReg | DstMem | ModRM | Mov, &pfx_0f_10_0f_11),
> -N, N, N, N, N, N, N, N,
> + N, N, N, N, N, N,
>
Thanks Paolo that worked!
Btw, this line
+ GP(SrcMem | DstReg | ModRM | Mov, &pfx_0f_10_0f_11),
+ GP(SrcReg | DstMem | ModRM | Mov, &pfx_0f_10_0f_11),
-N, N, N, N, N, N, N, N,
+ N, N, N, N, N, N,
I think it has 2 extra Ns (not removed from your change?).
Those instru
On 11/05/2017 09:00, Miltiadis Hatzimihail wrote:
>
> The interesting thing is that in the ram case the test is passing, but in
> the io is failing. Also, if I try this without KVM, it passes in both cases.
Yes, in the RAM case KVM is not invoked at all.
> So I ve done some reading and for the
I am trying to develop a simple PCI device and I am setting up 3 BARs. The
last BAR is a DDR and I ve tried 2 different implementations: one
with memory_region_init_io and one with memory_region_init_ram.
I ve got a small program that declares a buffer and does float operations
in the following fa
10 matches
Mail list logo
