> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:56 PM > > >>> On 13.12.16 at 13:00, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > > During the most recent Cambridge Hackathon (April 2016), there was a > > suggestion made (sorry - I don't recall from whom) to feed the the > > SVM/VMX intercept information into a slightly more general emulate > > framework, rather than to try to implement common functionality in 3 > > separate locations. > > I don't recall such a suggestion, so can you perhaps share a few > more of the details? Is this to basically invoke the insn emulator > here (once suitable extended)? If so, I think we may want to > approach this the other direction - first make the emulator > complete enough to be usable here, and only then funnel those > code paths into it. And to be honest, on the road towards > completion of the emulator I think the SVM/VMX insns are pretty > close to the end of the priority list. > > > On a different stance, we currently have multiple bits of code > > implementing accessing/caching/updating of segment registers for hvm > > guests. With the introduction of the ->validate() hook, we should be > > able to share all of this logic between the shadow and general emulation > > paths, as it isn't use-dependent. > > I fully agree that any elimination of code duplication is a good > goal. >
yes, it's a good thing. Thanks Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
