On 06/23/15 12:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.05.15 at 17:50, wrote:
Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operations return data
in EAX, "in (%dx),%eax" is the one to use. The other lengths like
"in (%dx),%al" will still
>>> On 22.05.15 at 17:50, wrote:
> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
> to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operations return data
> in EAX, "in (%dx),%eax" is the one to use. The other lengths like
> "in (%dx),%al" will still do things, only AL part of EA
On 06/12/15 02:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.06.15 at 00:10, wrote:
>> On 06/05/15 06:54, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> It would be really useful to see a comprehensive list of exactly what
>>> guest ring3 access to the vmware port actually enables i.e. a list of
>>> specific features which require
>>> On 12.06.15 at 00:10, wrote:
> On 06/05/15 06:54, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> It would be really useful to see a comprehensive list of exactly what
>> guest ring3 access to the vmware port actually enables i.e. a list of
>> specific features which require it.
>
> Ok, I have done some testing. Her
On 06/05/15 06:54, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> I'm talking about cost-benefits analysis. What's the benefit of
>>> accepting this patch, and is it worth the cost?
>>
>> The basic idea of allowing guests originally having got installed on
>> VMwar
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > I'm talking about cost-benefits analysis. What's the benefit of
> > accepting this patch, and is it worth the cost?
>
> The basic idea of allowing guests originally having got installed on
> VMware to continue their lives on Xen is certain
>>> On 03.06.15 at 18:50, wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 05:36 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>> On 06/03/15 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
> to port 0
On 06/04/15 10:14, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/04/2015 01:37 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>> On 06/03/15 12:58, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2015 05:41 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
On 06/03/15 12:23, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George
On 06/04/2015 01:37 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 06/03/15 12:58, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 06/03/2015 05:41 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>>> On 06/03/15 12:23, George Dunlap wrote:
On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, D
On 06/03/15 12:58, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 05:41 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>> On 06/03/15 12:23, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>> Summary is that VMware tr
On 06/03/15 12:23, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many op
On 06/03/2015 05:40 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/06/15 17:23, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
On 06/03/2015 05:41 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 06/03/15 12:23, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
On 06/03/2015 05:36 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 06/03/15 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operat
On 03/06/15 17:23, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many op
On 06/03/15 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>>> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
>>> to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operations return data
>>> in EAX, "in (%dx),%eax" is
On 06/03/2015 04:58 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>>> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
>>> to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operations return data
>>> in EAX, "in (%dx),%ea
On 03/06/15 16:26, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
>> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
>> to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operations return data
>> in EAX, "in (%dx),%eax" is the one to use. The other lengths like
>> "i
On 05/22/2015 04:50 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> Summary is that VMware treats "in (%dx),%eax" (or "out %eax,(%dx)")
> to port 0x5658 specially. Note: since many operations return data
> in EAX, "in (%dx),%eax" is the one to use. The other lengths like
> "in (%dx),%al" will still do things, only AL par
19 matches
Mail list logo
