On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:09 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 07/07/16 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 07.07.16 at 11:46, wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think this patch was in a good state (though few registers
>>> were needed clarification). Assuming it is ok to break the compatibility
>>> la
On 07/07/16 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.07.16 at 11:46, wrote:
Anyway, I think this patch was in a good state (though few registers
were needed clarification). Assuming it is ok to break the compatibility
later on, I will not oppose to have a reduce set.
Iirc we did bump that interface
>>> On 07.07.16 at 11:46, wrote:
> Anyway, I think this patch was in a good state (though few registers
> were needed clarification). Assuming it is ok to break the compatibility
> later on, I will not oppose to have a reduce set.
Iirc we did bump that interface version already after the tree g
On 07/07/16 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.07.16 at 21:12, wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/07/16 19:37, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
+void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
+{
+const struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
+
+re
>>> On 06.07.16 at 21:12, wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/07/16 19:37, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>>
>>> +void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
>>> +{
>>> +const struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
>>> +
>>> +req->data.r
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 06/07/2016 20:23, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 05.07.16 at 20:37, wrote:
+struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
+uint64_t x0;
+uint64_t x1;
+
On 06/07/2016 20:23, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.07.16 at 20:37, wrote:
+struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
+uint64_t x0;
+uint64_t x1;
+uint64_t x2;
+uint64_t x3;
+uint64_t x4;
+uint64_t x5;
+uint64_t x6;
+uint64
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.07.16 at 20:37, wrote:
>> +struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
>> +uint64_t x0;
>> +uint64_t x1;
>> +uint64_t x2;
>> +uint64_t x3;
>> +uint64_t x4;
>> +uint64_t x5;
>> +uint64_t x6;
>> +uint64_t x7;
>> +uin
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/16 19:37, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> +void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
>> +{
>> +const struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
>> +
>> +req->data.regs.arm.cpsr = regs->cpsr;
>> +req->data.
On 05/07/16 19:37, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
+void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
+{
+const struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
+
+req->data.regs.arm.cpsr = regs->cpsr;
+req->data.regs.arm.ttbr0 = READ_SYSREG64(TTBR0_EL1);
+req->data.regs.arm.ttbr1 = RE
On 06/07/16 08:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.07.16 at 20:37, wrote:
+struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
+uint64_t x0;
+uint64_t x1;
+uint64_t x2;
+uint64_t x3;
+uint64_t x4;
+uint64_t x5;
+uint64_t x6;
+uint64_t x7;
+uint64_t x8;
+uint64_t x9;
+uint64_t x1
On 07/06/16 10:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.07.16 at 20:37, wrote:
>> +struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
>> +uint64_t x0;
>> +uint64_t x1;
>> +uint64_t x2;
>> +uint64_t x3;
>> +uint64_t x4;
>> +uint64_t x5;
>> +uint64_t x6;
>> +uint64_t x7;
>> +uint64_t x8;
>> +
>>> On 05.07.16 at 20:37, wrote:
> +struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
> +uint64_t x0;
> +uint64_t x1;
> +uint64_t x2;
> +uint64_t x3;
> +uint64_t x4;
> +uint64_t x5;
> +uint64_t x6;
> +uint64_t x7;
> +uint64_t x8;
> +uint64_t x9;
> +uint64_t x10;
> +uint6
Add support for getting/setting registers through vm_event on ARM.
The set of registers can be expanded in the future to include other registers
as well if required. The set is limited to the GPRs, PC, CPSR and TTBR0/1 in
this patch.
Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel
Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru
---
C
14 matches
Mail list logo
