>>> On 30.09.16 at 13:59, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 08/09/16 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c >> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ static const opcode_desc_t twobyte_table >> /* 0x70 - 0x7F */ >> SrcImmByte|ModRM, SrcImmByte|ModRM, SrcImmByte|ModRM, SrcImmByte|ModRM, >> ModRM, ModRM, ModRM, ImplicitOps, >> - ModRM, ModRM, 0, 0, ModRM, ModRM, ModRM, ImplicitOps|ModRM, >> + ModRM, ModRM, 0, 0, ModRM, ModRM, ImplicitOps|ModRM, ImplicitOps|ModRM, >> /* 0x80 - 0x87 */ >> DstImplicit|SrcImm, DstImplicit|SrcImm, >> DstImplicit|SrcImm, DstImplicit|SrcImm, >> @@ -2291,6 +2291,10 @@ x86_decode( >> return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE; >> } >> >> + if ( op_bytes == 2 && >> + (ctxt->opcode & X86EMUL_OPC_PFX_MASK) == X86EMUL_OPC_66(0, 0) ) >> + op_bytes = 4; > > What is this change for? I presume it is to undo the effect of the > operand size override prefix when we have decided that the prefix > actually had an alternate meaning?
Yes. > If so, can we have a comment to this effect? + /* + * Undo the operand-size override effect of prefix 66 when it was + * determined to have another meaning. + */ > Everything else looks ok. Can I take this as R-b then with the comment added? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
