Laurent Vivier wrote: >> >> How about just calliing emulate_instruction() from here (just for the >> string case)? That will eliminate all the setup code. >> > > But this setup is in emulate_instruction() so it will be executed anyway. > >
I'm not worried about run-time overhead, but about the amount of code. >> x86_emulate_memop() will need to be extended to decode ins/outs, but >> that's fairly easy. >> > > X86_decode_prefix() is a subset of instruction decoding part of > x86_emulate_memop(), kvm_setup_pio() can be seen as a subset of instruction > emulating part of x86_emulate_memop(). So I think in term of performance it is > better to do like that, but I agree by doing: > > if (string) > return emulate_instruction(vcpu, kvm_run, 0, 0); > else > return kvm_setup_pio(vcpu, kvm_run, in, size, port); > > it is more more ... more simple. > > If you prefer simplicity, I can do like that ? > (but I know you prefer simplicity...) > > Yes. Note that x86_emulate_memop() will eventually call kvm_setup_pio() to complete the emulation. > BTW, I think PATCH 1,2 and 3 should be applied anyway because they allow to > introduce the separation between instruction decoding and instruction > emulation > requested by the TODO "Split the emulator into two functions: one to decode > into > the emulation context, and the other to actually execute the instruction." > I agree. I'll look into it with more detail. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
