On 03/04/2020 08:57, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 03.04.2020 01:12, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 24/03/2020 12:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Introduce a new blk() hook, paralleling the rmw() on in certain way, but >>> being intended for larger data sizes, and hence its HVM intermediate >>> handling function doesn't fall back to splitting the operation if the >>> requested virtual address can't be mapped. >>> >>> Note that SDM revision 071 doesn't specify exception behavior for >>> ModRM.mod == 0b11; assuming #UD here. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Thanks much, but I'm puzzled by you providing this, and hence > would like to double check: You specifically asked that I take > care of the cachability issue for MOVDIRI before you would ack > that change. How come you're not similarly concerned here?
This executes the MOVDIR64B instruction directly, so those properties are taken care of. (I think?) The MOVDIRI support just does a memcpy(). ~Andrew
