On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 26.01.15 at 16:58, <dsl...@verizon.com> wrote: >> On 01/22/15 03:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 21.01.15 at 18:52, <dsl...@verizon.com> wrote: >>>> On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03.10.14 at 00:40, <dsl...@verizon.com> wrote:
... > > As stated before - if feasible, 8 would seem the best option. The > second best one would be to support all four I/O insns (assuming > VMware supports all of them too) with any legal (even if pointless > or redundant) prefix combination, and with the prefixes actually > doing something correctly emulated. > Ok, I will focus on hvm_emulate_one. >>>> So there are 3 options here: >>>> 1) Add an ASSERT() like the BUG_ON() in get_instruction_length() >>>> 2) Switch to using get_instruction_length() >>>> 3) Switch to using MAX_INST_LEN. >>>> >>>> Let me know which way to go. >>> As said above - use get_instruction_length() if Intel confirms the >>> necessary hardware behavior as being architectural. If they >>> don't, 3) looks like the only viable option. >> >> >> So what is the procedure to getting "Intel confirms the necessary hardware >> behaviour as being architectural"? > > There's no procedure. Ask them explicitly (i.e. perhaps outside of > this thread, where the question may end up being well hidden from > their eyes), and then ping them until they give you a statement one > way or another. > I am assuming that: INTEL(R) VT FOR X86 (VT-X) M: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com> M: Eddie Dong <eddie.d...@intel.com> M: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> Is to correct list of people to ask. -Don Slutz > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
