They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead.
As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID instructions,
the hook can be omitted from all special-purpose emulation ops.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan Beulich
CC: Wei Liu
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/emu
>>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote:
> They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead.
>
> As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID instructions,
> the hook can be omitted from all special-purpose emulation ops.
So I was expecting the hook to go away altogeth
On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote:
>> They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead.
>>
>> As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID
>> instructions,
>> the hook can be omitted from all special-purpose emulation ops.
>
>>> On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote:
> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote:
>>> They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead.
>>>
>>> As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID
> instructions,
>>> the hook can be omitted fr
On 06/11/18 16:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote:
>> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote:
They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead.
As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID
>>
>>> On 09.11.18 at 18:16, wrote:
> On 06/11/18 16:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote:
>>> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote:
> They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead.
>
> As x86_emulate() now only
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:17:59AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.11.18 at 18:16, wrote:
> > On 06/11/18 16:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote:
> >>> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote:
> > They are identical, so provide
>>> On 14.11.18 at 01:20, wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:17:59AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 09.11.18 at 18:16, wrote:
>> > LWP doesn't exist any more, even on the hardware it used to exist on.
>> > It was never implemented on Fam17h, and was removed from Fam15/16h in a
>> > microco
On 09/11/2018 17:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
>> However, one
>> issue already might be that in order for bits in a (sub)leaf above
>> (guest) limits to come out all clear, it is guest_cpuid() which cuts
>> things off. Neither cpuid_featureset_to_policy() nor its inverse
>> nor sanitise_featureset()
>>> On 15.11.18 at 15:23, wrote:
> On 09/11/2018 17:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> However, one
>>> issue already might be that in order for bits in a (sub)leaf above
>>> (guest) limits to come out all clear, it is guest_cpuid() which cuts
>>> things off. Neither cpuid_featureset_to_policy() nor
10 matches
Mail list logo