On Jul 28, 2016 15:25, "Julien Grall" <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On 28/07/2016 22:05, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: >> That's not how we do it with vm_event. Even on x86 we only selectively >> set registers using the VM_EVENT_FLAG_SET_REGISTERS flag (albeit it >> not being documented in the header). As for "not exposing them" it's a >> waste to declare separate structures for getting and setting. I'll >> change my mind about that if Razvan is on the side that we should >> start doing that, but I don't think that's the case at the moment. > > > Is there any rationale to only set a subset of the information you retrieved? >
I just did a testrun with setting every register through this method to 0 other then pc and it resulted in hypervisor crash. Not sure if it's just my setup or not though so I'm still poking at it. However, I don't really see a usecase where setting ttbr regs to be required either via the fast method so it simply may not worth digging into it more at this time. Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
