>>> On 18.09.15 at 21:19, wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Razvan Cojocaru > wrote:
>> I have nothing in principle against having a SET_REGISTERS flag instead
>> of a SET_EIP one, but I am unsure of how (and where) that would be best
>>
On 09/21/2015 11:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.09.15 at 21:19, wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Razvan Cojocaru >> wrote:
>>> I have nothing in principle against having a SET_REGISTERS flag instead
>>> of a SET_EIP one, but I am
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 06:57 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
> > > wrote:
> >
> > A previous
On 09/16/2015 06:57 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
> > wrote:
>
> A previous version of this patch dealing with support for skipping
> the current instruction when a vm_event
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
wrote:
> A previous version of this patch dealing with support for skipping
> the current instruction when a vm_event response requested it
> computed the instruction length in the hypervisor, adding non-trivial
> code
A previous version of this patch dealing with support for skipping
the current instruction when a vm_event response requested it
computed the instruction length in the hypervisor, adding non-trivial
code dependencies. This patch allows a userspace vm_event client to
simply request that the guest's