On 06/04/17 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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?
Consistency with the surrounding code.
>
> In any event
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Thanks.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
