On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:47:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.09.16 at 19:43, wrote:
> > Finally found the vmfunc opcode page in Vol 3 30.3, VMX Instruction
> > Reference.
> > Agreed, there's no mention of prefixes, "pfx", on this page. It appears
> > that the other VMX instructions i
>>> On 27.09.16 at 19:43, wrote:
> Finally found the vmfunc opcode page in Vol 3 30.3, VMX Instruction Reference.
> Agreed, there's no mention of prefixes, "pfx", on this page. It appears
> that the other VMX instructions in this section don't mention prefixes either.
> Looking at Table A-6 "Opco
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:26:00AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.09.16 at 20:13, wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Lai, Paul wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:39:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> > >>> On 21.09.16 at 00:35, wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at
>>> On 26.09.16 at 20:13, wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Lai, Paul wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:39:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > >>> On 21.09.16 at 00:35, wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Paul, there's be
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Lai, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:39:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 21.09.16 at 00:35, wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Paul, there's been no reply to
> > >> https://lists.xenpr
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:39:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.09.16 at 00:35, wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul, there's been no reply to
> >> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-09/msg00380.html
> >
> > The r
>>> On 21.09.16 at 00:35, wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> Paul, there's been no reply to
>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-09/msg00380.html
>
> The refered to patch, commit a1b1572833, adds a check for vmfunc.
> I look a lit
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Paul, there's been no reply to
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-09/msg00380.html
>
> Jan
>
Jan:
The refered to patch, commit a1b1572833, adds a check for vmfunc.
I look a little time to look at the SDM
>>> On 05.09.16 at 11:52, wrote:
> On 05/09/16 10:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> LOCK prefixes get dealt with elsewhere and 66, F2, and F3 can all be
>> checked for in one go by looking at vex.pfx.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> As far as subsuming the checks goes, this is fine. However, is th
On 05/09/16 10:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> LOCK prefixes get dealt with elsewhere and 66, F2, and F3 can all be
> checked for in one go by looking at vex.pfx.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
As far as subsuming the checks goes, this is fine. However, is the code
actually correct? The manual makes n
LOCK prefixes get dealt with elsewhere and 66, F2, and F3 can all be
checked for in one go by looking at vex.pfx.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
@@ -3942,8 +3942,8 @@ x86_emulate(
goto rdtsc;
11 matches
Mail list logo
