On 26/10/2018 15:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.10.18 at 16:22, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 26/10/2018 14:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.10.18 at 12:36, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
>>>> @@ -323,6 +323,18 @@ void free_vcpu_struct(struct vcpu *v)
>>>>      free_xenheap_page(v);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +/* Initialise various registers to their architectural INIT/RESET state. */
>>>> +void arch_vcpu_regs_init(struct vcpu *v)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    v->arch.user_regs = (typeof(v->arch.user_regs)){
>>>> +        .rflags = X86_EFLAGS_MBS,
>>>> +    };
>>> Sadly this initializer broke the build once again for gcc 4.3.x.
>> Oh - that's unfortunate.  I guess it will need a memset instead.
> Or we finally need to bump the minimum version we're happy with.
>
>>> (As a side note, using .eflags instead of .rflags would have a
>>> fair chance of an omitted REX prefix.)
>> You specifically requested rflags over eflags in your previous review.
> Did I? I haven't been able to find v1 of this patch at all in the archives
> (going back to May), or in my inbox (using just part of the title for
> searching). Was that posted in private, or under a different title? I'm
> trying to figure why I would have asked for that...

<5B17E80A02000078001C8C1D@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>

This series is the fairly non-controversial parts of the original full series, because there is no point delaying getting it in.  I'm still fighting with the monitor framework, which is a prerequisite to being able to fix #DB injection in the VT-x and SVM code.

~Andrew