On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:39:20AM -0700, Adam Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:15 AM Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:54:00AM -0700, Adam Dunlap via groups.io wrote: > > > + UINT8 OpCode; > > > > The linux kernel patch uses "unsigned int opcode" and apparently > > checks more than just the first byte for multi-byte opcodes. Why > > do it differently here? > > Good question. This patch does check for two-byte opcodes with this snippet: > > + OpCode = *(InstructionData->OpCodes); > + if (OpCode == TWO_BYTE_OPCODE_ESCAPE) { > + OpCode = *(InstructionData->OpCodes + 1); > + } > > This works because the first byte of two-byte opcodes is always 0x0f in the > cases that we're checking for.
Ok, missed that little detail. Thanks for explaining. Reviewed-by: Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#118018): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/118018 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105581633/21656 Mute #vc:https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/mutehashtag/vc Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
