> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:41 PM
>
> On 16/01/17 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > If the hardware supports faulting, and the guest has chosen to use it, leave
> > faulting active in HVM context.
> >
> > It is more efficient to have h
On 16/01/17 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> If the hardware supports faulting, and the guest has chosen to use it, leave
> faulting active in HVM context.
>
> It is more efficient to have hardware convert CPUID to a #GP fault (which we
> don't intercept), than to take a VMExit and have Xen re-inject
>>> On 16.01.17 at 12:17, wrote:
> If the hardware supports faulting, and the guest has chosen to use it, leave
> faulting active in HVM context.
>
> It is more efficient to have hardware convert CPUID to a #GP fault (which we
> don't intercept), than to take a VMExit and have Xen re-inject a #GP
If the hardware supports faulting, and the guest has chosen to use it, leave
faulting active in HVM context.
It is more efficient to have hardware convert CPUID to a #GP fault (which we
don't intercept), than to take a VMExit and have Xen re-inject a #GP fault.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
C
