On 19/02/16 17:06, Lengyel, Tamas wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com > <mailto:jbeul...@suse.com>> wrote: > > >>> On 16.02.16 at 07:58, <kevin.t...@intel.com > <mailto:kevin.t...@intel.com>> wrote: > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c > >> @@ -490,6 +490,7 @@ static void vmx_vmcs_save(struct vcpu *v, > struct hvm_hw_cpu > >> *c) > >> __vmread(GUEST_SYSENTER_CS, &c->sysenter_cs); > >> __vmread(GUEST_SYSENTER_ESP, &c->sysenter_esp); > >> __vmread(GUEST_SYSENTER_EIP, &c->sysenter_eip); > >> + __vmread(GUEST_DR7, &c->dr7); > >> > > > > Hi, Tamas, I didn't see the open closed around "v != current", if > > I'm not missing some mails... Have you confirmed with Jan that > > he is OK with it? > > We didn't really settle on this yet. I'm not heavily opposed to it > remaining unconditional for now, but as said in the other replay > my fear is that this might later lead to further additions which > may then also be of no interest to the main (save/migration) > user of this code. > > > Andrew, any comment if this is OK from your perspective?
I specifically suggested the use of vmx_save_dr() to make all debug state consistent. I don't see much purpose in being able to introspect just %dr7. If any debug related activities are going on, all debug registers are relevant. Is this not the case? ~Andrew
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
