On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:13 AM Tom Lendacky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 4/17/24 11:54, Adam Dunlap wrote:
> > +
> > + case SVM_EXIT_INVD:
> > + break;
>
> This changes the current behavior today, but I'm ok with that.
>
Whoops, I should've checked that. Should we delete InvdExit() then, if
it's dead code?
> > +
> > + case SVM_EXIT_MONITOR:
> > + CcDecodeModRm (Regs, InstructionData);
> > +
> > + if ((OpCode == 0x01) && (InstructionData->ModRm.Uint8 == 0xc8)) {
>
> This should also handle the MONITORX opcode (hmmm... I need to send a
> patch to the kernel).
>
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case SVM_EXIT_MWAIT:
> > + CcDecodeModRm (Regs, InstructionData);
> > +
> > + if ((OpCode == 0x01) && (InstructionData->ModRm.Uint8 == 0xc9)) {
>
> Same here for MWAITX.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
Got it! I'll send out a new patch shortly if I can figure out how to
use git send-email correctly.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#118037): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/118037
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
