On 10.02.2020 15:06, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/02/2020 14:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 10.02.2020 14:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2020 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andre
On 10/02/2020 14:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.02.2020 14:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/02/2020 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 10.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
On 10.02.2020 14:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/02/2020 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 10.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
> +++ b/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
> @@ -23,
On 10/02/2020 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
--- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
+++ b/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ following machine state:
* `cs`:
On 10.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> --- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
>>> +++ b/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
>>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ following machine state:
>>> * `cs`: must be a 32-bit read/execute code segment with
On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
>> +++ b/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ following machine state:
>> * `cs`: must be a 32-bit read/execute code segment with a base of ‘0’
>> and a limit of ‘0x’
On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
> +++ b/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ following machine state:
> * `cs`: must be a 32-bit read/execute code segment with a base of ‘0’
> and a limit of ‘0x’. The selector value is unspecified.
>
> - *
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 03:19:39PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The written ABI states that %es will be set up, but libxc doesn't do so. In
> practice, it breaks `rep movs` inside guests before they reload %es.
>
> The written ABI doesn't mention %ss, but libxc does set it up. Having %ds
> diff
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 03:19:39PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The written ABI states that %es will be set up, but libxc doesn't do so. In
> practice, it breaks `rep movs` inside guests before they reload %es.
>
> The written ABI doesn't mention %ss, but libxc does set it up. Having %ds
> diff
The written ABI states that %es will be set up, but libxc doesn't do so. In
practice, it breaks `rep movs` inside guests before they reload %es.
The written ABI doesn't mention %ss, but libxc does set it up. Having %ds
different to %ss is obnoxous to work with, as different registers have
differ
10 matches
Mail list logo