On Jo, 2017-09-21 at 06:44 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21.09.17 at 10:57, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > From: Petre Pircalabu [mailto:ppircal...@bitdefender.com] > > > Sent: 21 September 2017 06:12 > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c > > > @@ -106,12 +106,21 @@ void vmx_realmode_emulate_one(struct > > > hvm_emulate_ctxt *hvmemul_ctxt) > > > if ( hvm_vcpu_io_need_completion(vio) || vio->mmio_retry ) > > > vio->io_completion = HVMIO_realmode_completion; > > > > > > - if ( rc == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE || rc == > > > X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED > > > ) > > > + if ( rc == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE ) > > I don't quite understand this change. Why has it become unnecessary > > to deal > > with X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED? Patch #1 added this change so it seems > > odd that > > patch #4 would then revert it. > Yeah, it would certainly be more natural to bring things into > their final shape right away. > > Jan > > > ________________________ > This email was scanned by Bitdefender Thank-you very much for your observation. I will squash this patch into the first patch of the series. ("x86emul: New return code for unimplemented instruction")
//Petre ________________________ This email was scanned by Bitdefender _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
