On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 08/05/15 11:53, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/05/15 10:06, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>>> On 05/07/2015 09:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> In an effort to be architecture neutral, it might be an idea to have
>>>>> something like
>>>>>
>>>>> struct vm_event_write_cr {
>>>>> uint64_t index;
>>>>> uint64_t old_val, new_val;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> And have a per-arch index of control registers, such as
>>>>>
>>>>> X86_CR0
>>>>> X86_CR3
>>>>> X86_CR4
>>>>> X86_XCR0
>>>>> ...
>>>>> ARM32_$foo
>> On ARM there are no "cr" registers so IMHO it would be better to
>> rename the struct vm_event_write_register. Other than that this sounds
>> like a good addition to the interface.
>
> But there are surely the concept of "control registers" ?
>
> (I have no knowledge in this area)
>
> ~Andrew
(Re-adding xen-devel)
Certainly, they are just not (necessarily) called "CR". For example,
CR3 equivalent on ARM is TTBR1. So what I meant here is that naming
the struct should not be x86 specific.
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
