>>> On 19.07.18 at 03:51, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> @@ -78,6 +78,10 @@ static int vmx_msr_write_intercept(unsig
>> static void vmx_invlpg(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long vaddr);
>> static int vmx_vmfunc_intercept(struct cpu_user_regs *regs);
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 9:23 PM
>
> Three of the four hooks are not exposed outside of vmx.c, and all of
> them have only a single possible non-NULL value. So there's no reason to
> use hooks here - a simple set of flag indicators is sufficie
On 11/07/18 14:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Three of the four hooks are not exposed outside of vmx.c, and all of
> them have only a single possible non-NULL value. So there's no reason to
> use hooks here - a simple set of flag indicators is sufficient (and we
> don't even need a flag for the VM entry
Three of the four hooks are not exposed outside of vmx.c, and all of
them have only a single possible non-NULL value. So there's no reason to
use hooks here - a simple set of flag indicators is sufficient (and we
don't even need a flag for the VM entry one, as it's always
(de-)activated together th
