On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Razvan Cojocaru
wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 02:52 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.05.15 at 13:05, wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Cooper
>>> wrote:
On 08/05/15 11:53, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Cooper
On 05/08/2015 03:21 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.05.15 at 19:12, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -2966,6 +2966,8 @@ int hvm_handle_xsetbv(u32 index, u64 new_bv)
>> {
>> struct segment_register sreg;
>>
>> +hvm_event_xsetbv(index, new_bv
>>> On 06.05.15 at 19:12, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -2966,6 +2966,8 @@ int hvm_handle_xsetbv(u32 index, u64 new_bv)
> {
> struct segment_register sreg;
>
> +hvm_event_xsetbv(index, new_bv);
> +
> hvm_get_segment_register(current, x86
On 05/08/2015 02:52 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.05.15 at 13:05, wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/05/15 11:53, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 08/05/15 10:06, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>
>>> On 08.05.15 at 13:05, wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On 08/05/15 11:53, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Cooper
>>> wrote:
On 08/05/15 10:06, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 08/05/15 11:53, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/05/15 10:06, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> In an effort to be architecture neutr
On 08/05/15 10:06, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> In an effort to be architecture neutral, it might be an idea to have
>> something like
>>
>> struct vm_event_write_cr {
>> uint64_t index;
>> uint64_t old_val, new_val;
>> };
>>
>> And have a per-arc
On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> In an effort to be architecture neutral, it might be an idea to have
> something like
>
> struct vm_event_write_cr {
> uint64_t index;
> uint64_t old_val, new_val;
> };
>
> And have a per-arch index of control registers, such as
>
> X86_CR0
>>> On 08.05.15 at 08:18, wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> In an effort to be architecture neutral, it might be an idea to have
>> something like
>>
>> struct vm_event_write_cr {
>> uint64_t index;
>> uint64_t old_val, new_val;
>> };
>>
>> And have a per-arch inde
On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> In an effort to be architecture neutral, it might be an idea to have
> something like
>
> struct vm_event_write_cr {
> uint64_t index;
> uint64_t old_val, new_val;
> };
>
> And have a per-arch index of control registers, such as
>
> X86_CR0
On 06/05/15 18:12, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> This patch adds XSETBV (XCR) vm_events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru
> ---
> tools/libxc/include/xenctrl.h |2 ++
> tools/libxc/xc_monitor.c| 15 +++
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c| 16
> xen/arch
On 07/05/15 16:43, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 20:12 +0300 on 06 May (1430943148), Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> This patch adds XSETBV (XCR) vm_events.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru
> After making things more architecture-neutral in the API rework, it
> seems a shame to have this called 'xsetbv'.
At 20:12 +0300 on 06 May (1430943148), Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> This patch adds XSETBV (XCR) vm_events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru
After making things more architecture-neutral in the API rework, it
seems a shame to have this called 'xsetbv'. But since we already have
CR0 etc in this in
13 matches
Mail list logo
