Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
1) add is storing the result in the wrong register
6486: 66 64 89 3e 72 01 mov%edi,%fs:0x172
648c: 66 be 8d 03 00 00 mov$0x38d,%esi
6492: 66 c1 e6 04 shl$0x4,%esi
6496: 66 b8 98 0a 00 00
On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:33:38 +0300
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
1) add is storing the result in the wrong register
6486: 66 64 89 3e 72 01 mov%edi,%fs:0x172
648c: 66 be 8d 03 00 00 mov$0x38d,%esi
6492: 66
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Guillaume Thouvenin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:05:39 +0300
Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WinXP fails with the patch applied too. Ubuntu 7.10 live CD and
FreeDOS don't boot but complain about instruction mov 0x11,sreg not
On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:05:39 +0300
Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WinXP fails with the patch applied too. Ubuntu 7.10 live CD and
FreeDOS don't boot but complain about instruction mov 0x11,sreg not
being emulated.
Mohammed, can you try the patch at the end of this mail? Here
Hi Guillaume,
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:05:39 +0300
Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WinXP fails with the patch applied too. Ubuntu 7.10 live CD and
FreeDOS don't boot but complain about instruction mov
On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:29:21 +0300
Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WinXP fails to boot with your patch applied too. FWIW, Ubuntu 8.04 has
a fixed version of gfxboot that doesn't do nasty things with SS on
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:29:21 +0300
Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WinXP fails to boot with your patch applied too. FWIW, Ubuntu 8.04 has
a fixed version of gfxboot that
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:29:21 +0300
Mohammed Gamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
WinXP fails to boot
On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:30:44 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8.04 is not a good test-case. 7.10 is what you want to try.
Oh yes you're right. I tried 8.04 because Balaji had problems to
boot it with the patch.
The good news is, 7.10 appears to work! The bad news is that
On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:13:31 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code sequence is:
8235: 66 data16
8236: 0f 22 c0mov%eax,%cr0
8239: ea 3e 02 00 08 b8 00ljmp $0xb8,$0x800023e
So it switches to
On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:56:56 +0530
Balaji Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With your patch applied ubuntu 8.04 livecd fails to boot. Not any better
with Marcelo's patch on top.
Hi Balaji,
And without the patch, can you boot the ubuntu 8.04 livecd?
Regards,
Guillaume
On Monday 05 May 2008 06:10:08 pm Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:56:56 +0530
Balaji Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With your patch applied ubuntu 8.04 livecd fails to boot. Not any better
with Marcelo's patch on top.
Hi Balaji,
And without the patch, can you boot the
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:56:56 +0530
Balaji Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With your patch applied ubuntu 8.04 livecd fails to boot. Not any better
with Marcelo's patch on top.
Hi Balaji,
And without the patch, can you boot the ubuntu 8.04 livecd?
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WinXP fails to boot with your patch applied too. FWIW, Ubuntu 8.04 has
a fixed version of gfxboot that doesn't do nasty things with SS on
privileged mode transitions.
WinXP fails with the patch applied too. Ubuntu
On Friday 02 May 2008 12:43:31 am Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Guillaume,
With your patch applied ubuntu 8.04 livecd fails to boot. Not any better
with Marcelo's patch on top.
exception 13 (33)
rax 007f rbx 0080 rcx rdx
rsi
Hi Guillaume,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
Hello,
snip
-hda ~/disk_images/hd_50G.qcow2
-cdrom /images_iso/openSUSE-10.3-GM-x86_64-mini.iso -boot d -s -m 1024
exception 13 (33)
rax 0673 rbx 0080 rcx
rdx
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
Hello,
This patch should solve the problem observed during protected mode
transitions that appears for example during the installation of
openSuse-10.3. Unfortunately there is an issue that crashes
kvm-userspace. I'm not sure if it's a problem introduced by the
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
Hello,
This patch should solve the problem observed during protected mode
transitions that appears for example during the installation of
openSuse-10.3. Unfortunately there is an issue that crashes
kvm-userspace. I'm not sure if it's a problem introduced by the
Le mardi 29 avril 2008 à 11:41 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit :
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
Hello,
This patch should solve the problem observed during protected mode
transitions that appears for example during the installation of
openSuse-10.3. Unfortunately there is an issue that
Le mardi 29 avril 2008 à 19:09 +0200, Laurent Vivier a écrit :
Le mardi 29 avril 2008 à 11:41 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit :
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
Hello,
This patch should solve the problem observed during protected mode
transitions that appears for example during the
Laurent Vivier wrote:
Le mardi 29 avril 2008 à 11:41 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit :
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
Hello,
This patch should solve the problem observed during protected mode
transitions that appears for example during the installation of
openSuse-10.3. Unfortunately
Laurent Vivier wrote:
Why dst.val is not 0x53e10 ?
I can answer myself to this one:
emulate_2op_SrcB(sal, c-src, c-dst, ctxt-eflags);
does nothing if dst.byte == 0
So next question is the good question...
Why dst.byte is 0 ?
Because dst.bytes is only set if
22 matches
Mail list logo
