Le 06/06/2025 à 11:13, Jan Beulich a écrit :
> On 05.06.2025 19:06, Teddy Astie wrote:
>> Le 05/06/2025 à 12:27, Jan Beulich a écrit :
>>> Move the function to its own assembly file. Having it in C just for the
>>> entire body to be an asm() isn't really helpful. Then have two flavors:
>>> A "basic
On 05.06.2025 19:06, Teddy Astie wrote:
> Le 05/06/2025 à 12:27, Jan Beulich a écrit :
>> Move the function to its own assembly file. Having it in C just for the
>> entire body to be an asm() isn't really helpful. Then have two flavors:
>> A "basic" version using qword steps for the bulk of the ope
On 05/06/2025 6:06 pm, Teddy Astie wrote:
> Le 05/06/2025 à 12:27, Jan Beulich a écrit :
>> Move the function to its own assembly file. Having it in C just for the
>> entire body to be an asm() isn't really helpful. Then have two flavors:
>> A "basic" version using qword steps for the bulk of the o
On 05/06/2025 11:25 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
> @@ -195,12 +195,16 @@ void *place_ret(void *ptr)
> * executing.
> *
> * "noinline" to cause control flow change and thus invalidate I$ and
> - * cause refetch after modification.
Le 05/06/2025 à 12:27, Jan Beulich a écrit :
> Move the function to its own assembly file. Having it in C just for the
> entire body to be an asm() isn't really helpful. Then have two flavors:
> A "basic" version using qword steps for the bulk of the operation, and an
> ERMS version for modern hard
