On 05/05/2015 01:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 05.05.15 at 12:01, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >> The mem_access client might want to use hvm_emulate_one_no_write(), >> in which case the RAM-to-RAM copy code in hvmemul_rep_movs() would >> lead to an unwanted (and unexpected) write operation. > > I don't follow: hvm_emulate_one_no_write() uses > hvm_emulate_ops_no_write, which in turn uses > hvmemul_rep_movs_discard(). What unwanted writes are you > talking about? And if it was needed, why would > hvmemul_rep_stos() not require a similar tweak?
You're right, my mistake. I'm testing a few patches meant for the a new series, and one of them introduces a third kind of emulation, and the problem is only there - the nowrite case is fine, as you rightly pointed out. Sorry for the false alarm. On the bright side, this just saved a bit of back-and-forth when the series is submitted. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
