On 07/12/16 15:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.12.16 at 16:06, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 06/12/16 14:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -3670,6 +3652,7 @@ x86_emulate(
>>>
>>> case 0xd8: /* FPU 0xd8 */
>>> host_and_vcpu_must_have(fpu);
>>> + get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_fpu, &fic);
>>> switch ( modrm )
>>> {
>>> case 0xc0 ... 0xc7: /* fadd %stN,%st */
>>> @@ -3715,10 +3698,12 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> + put_fpu(&fic);
>>> break;
>> This repositioning does mean that we might skip the put_fpu() call,
>> although we still retain the catch-all _put_fpu().
>>
>> I think this is still safe as we only skip this put_fpu() in cases where
>> we didn't emulate an instruction, and there isn't the risk of missing a
>> pending FPU exception.
> Correct - the catch-all one is sufficient for all cases.
Ok. Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
