>>> On 05.04.17 at 19:33, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ static int hvmemul_virtual_to_linear(
> okay = hvm_virtual_to_linear_addr(
> seg, reg, offset - (*reps - 1) * bytes_per_rep,
> *reps * bytes_per_rep, access_type,
> - hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.addr_size, linear);
> + hvmemul_get_seg_reg(x86_seg_cs, hvmemul_ctxt), linear);
> *linear += (*reps - 1) * bytes_per_rep;
> if ( hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.addr_size != 64 )
> *linear = (uint32_t)*linear;
> @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static int hvmemul_virtual_to_linear(
> {
> okay = hvm_virtual_to_linear_addr(
> seg, reg, offset, *reps * bytes_per_rep, access_type,
> - hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.addr_size, linear);
> + hvmemul_get_seg_reg(x86_seg_cs, hvmemul_ctxt), linear);
Is there a particular reason why you use the function call in the
above two cases, but ...
> @@ -2075,7 +2075,7 @@ void hvm_emulate_init_per_insn(
> hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf_eip,
> sizeof(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf),
> hvm_access_insn_fetch,
> - hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.addr_size,
> + &hvmemul_ctxt->seg_reg[x86_seg_cs],
... the cheaper array reference here?
In any event
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
